Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

QUEEN'S ROAD BRIGHTON BURIAL GROUND BILL [Lords].

Read the Third time and passed, without amendment

COMMONWEALTH PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time and committed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Unemployed Young Persons

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish monthly figures showing the number of unemployed teenagers.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): The figures requested are normally available and published only at six-monthly intervals. I am considering whether they may be collected more frequently.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that all those interested, especially members of the Institute of Careers Officers, would like the figures to be published monthly, so that they can be more aware of the trends and the true size of the problem? That would enable them to deal with it more adequately in the country as a whole, particularly in the regions, where one suspects that the figure goes up and down within the six-months' period that the Minister has mentioned, and action could be taken to alleviate the great difficulty that that brings.

Mr. Fraser: Consideration is being given to the publication of the figures more frequently. However, the figures for unemployed school leavers and those registered at careers offices are published on a monthly basis.

Mr. Bulmer: What evidence is the Minister receiving on the outlook for jobs for those who will leave school at the end of the school year? If it is the same as the evidence that I am getting in my constituency, the outlook for those leaving school is as bad as it has been at any time within the past 10 years. What steps does the Department contemplate to relieve this situation?

Mr. Fraser: When unemployment rises, young people tend to suffer disproportionately more than others. The Chancellor has announced an increased grant-in-aid to the Manpower Services Commission, and young people will benefit from the strengthening of the employment and training services. The commission regards the training of young people as a high priority and provides short industrial and experimental "wider opportunity" courses of preliminary training. It also devises methods of safeguarding and continuing training for redundant apprentices. A great deal is being done.

Mr. Noble: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the unemployment statistics are probably one of the most valuable economic indicators that we have, and that therefore they should be kept up to date and comprehensive? Will he consider, in his Department, ways and means of showing the figures for all married women who lose their jobs, rather than just those who either pay a full stamp and collect unemployment pay


or present themselves at employment exchanges for further jobs?

Mr. Fraser: This point is frequently made. The difficulty is to collect figures of married women who are economically active and employed on a monthly basis. Those figures are published as a result of population surveys, but they would not be collected on the same basis as that used for the registered unemployed.

Mr. Hayhoe: Is not the outlook for teenagers, especially those leaving school later this year, worse than it has been for a long time? Surely the various measures which the Minister read to the House will have hardly any effect on that outlook? Will he give more urgent attention to this matter?

Mr. Fraser: I rebut the presumption in that question. The Government regard employment for teenagers and others as an urgent matter, and believe that training opportunities are more important than almost anything else, because they provide the opportunity for a take-off when the present state of recession recedes.

Oral Answers to Questions — Health and Safety Commission

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to be able to announce the location of the headquarters of the Health and Safety Commission.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) on 18th March 1975—[Vol. 888, c. 1446–7.]—I am not yet able to say when the advice of the commission will be available.

Mr. Hooley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that Sheffield is getting anxious about a decision on this matter, which is regarded as important for the development of new employment opportunities in South Yorkshire generally?

Mr. Walker: I admire the persistence with which my hon. Friends from Sheffield pursue this matter. I assure my hon. Friend that we are about to make an announcement on it, and that the claims of Sheffield will certainly not be overlooked.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the Minister aware of the severe problems of health and safety involved in the offshore oil industry? In those circumstances, will he consider setting up a special branch of the commission or a division of the commission based in Scotland to deal with those problems?

Mr. Walker: I am aware of the problems associated with safety in the North Sea. However, the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question would primarily be for the commission to consider and make recommendations about.

Oral Answers to Questions — Social Contract

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he remains satisfied with the working of the social contract.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the current operation of the social contract.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): As I told my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent. South (Mr. Ashley) and Aberdare (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) on 18th March—[Vol. 888; c. 1437–9.]—progress has been made on both the Government's side and the trade unions' side in fulfilling the social contract, which covers a whole range of policies. But firmer adherence to the spirit of the TUC guidelines is certainly required if we are to avoid higher unemployment and curb inflation.

Mr. Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that wages are rising too fast, which, in effect, means that the social contract is no longer working? Will the right hon. Gentleman list those major settlements which are lower, thanks to the social contract?

Mr. Foot: To answer the hon. Gentleman's last question first, I have said on a number of occasions why I do not think it appropriate, right or desirable that the Government should list individual settlements in the way the hon. Gentleman asked. It is true that wage settlements have been running ahead of the retail price index—that is one of the


factors which led to the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget—but I certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point, that that means that the social contract is no longer working, because, as I said in my reply, it covers many other factors apart from wages. Moreover, in many cases the guidelines are being followed.

Mr. Skinner: Does not the social contract also cover the question of job security, about which the TUC and most of us on the Government side of the House—all of us, I assume—are very concerned? Does not my right hon. Friend take the hint even from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last Tuesday, when he seemed to declare that the new and further development of the social contract and economic strategy is to create a greater pool of unemployed? Does that not lead us to the conclusion that the social contract is a contract to join the dole queue?

Mr. Foot: I do not accept my hon. Friend's description of the social contract, particularly in the latter part of his last sentence. I agree with the implication of what he says in the first part of his question—that two other important strands of the social contract are that the Government should do everything in their power to prevent the rise of unemployment and to curb inflation. Both of those matters are also part of the social contract. But what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was seeking to deal with in that part of the proposals was the fact that continuation of the rate of inflation in this country at a considerably higher rate than that in many other countries would also threaten jobs in this country. That is one of the reasons why action must be taken to deal with it.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to some of us how we determine whether a wage settlement is within the social contract or outside it? Is it inside when an increase of 30 per cent. is allowed, or an increase of 20 per cent.? How do we know what is the Government's measuring stick to decide what percentage increase is within the contract and what is not?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman should study the guidelines laid down by the TUC. One of the important aspects of

those guidelines is keeping up with the cost of living, but there are other guidelines, such as the 12-months' rule, the possibility of restructuring that can be taken into account in some cases, and the special provision for meeting the target on dealing with the problem of low pay. For those various reasons it is not possible to summarise the guidelines in terms of a simple, single percentage.

Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the wage element is by no means the main one in the rise in inflation, and that therefore what is needed is a new turn in the Government's economic strategy to deal with inflation other than by putting the main burden on the shoulders of working people?

Mr. Foot: I agree that wages are not the only item contributing to inflation. It is wrong that the problem should ever be stated in that way. As I have said many times, at this Box and elsewhere, there are many other contributory factors. But nobody can deny that over recent months the rate of wage settlements has run strongly ahead of the cost of living. If that continues, particularly at this period—it may be that at other periods it could be borne—it will undoubtedly feed inflation in the future. That is fully accepted, not merely by the Government but in the TUC's Economic Review. Therefore, in that respect I agree with the TUC on the subject.

Mr. Prior: We are very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has to go into hospital, and we all wish him a speedy recovery.
Now I wish to say something that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will receive quite so readily. We regard the social contract as now being nothing but a busted flush. We do not understand how the right hon. Gentleman can still tell us that the purpose of the social contract—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we do not understand how he can say that he believes that the social contract is preventing unemployment and keeping down the level of inflation, because it is so plainly not doing either of those things? Is he aware that to us on the Opposition side of the House it seems that the contract binds the Government and places the nation in bondage?

Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his first remarks, about my illness, which, like Mark Twain's death, has been greatly exaggerated, through no fault of my own. None the less, I thank him for his kind remarks.
As for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the social contract, there have of course been stresses and strains on it. Nobody who ever studied the matter would imagine that one could simply solve the whole problem of the relation between wages, unemployment and inflation, which is what the social contract seeks to do. It will take a long time before the processes of persuasion are successful in doing it. But in the meantime it does not assist for people to say that it is a busted flush because it has not succeeded already.
Representatives of the Government had very good discussions yesterday with representatives of the General Council of the TUC, who clearly indicated to us the strains on the contract, some of them resulting from the measures which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor felt compelled to adopt in the Budget. We discussed them, and I believe that the social contract came out of that discussion stronger than when we went into the discussion.

Mr. Brittan: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now seek to negotiate a revision and tighter definition of the terms of the social contract.

Mr. Foot: No, Sir. What we should like to secure is more effective application of the terms of the existing contract, but naturally we have had and will continue to have discussions with the trade unions about all aspects of the subject and how we may deal with it in the future.

Mr. Brittan: As the Secretary of State insists on recognising a dead creature as a live one, will he at least confirm that it remains Government policy in no circumstances to resort to statutory intervention in wages?

Mr. Foot: Yes. The sense of the hon. Gentleman's last remark was indicated by the Prime Minister to the representatives of the General Council of the TUC in our liaison committee yesterday, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman is

satisfied on that account. We have no intention of returning to a statutory policy, because that was an utter disaster. That is why we think it is irresponsible for those who led us to disaster under the statutory policy to pour scorn, and anything else on which they can lay their hands, on the social contract as it operates now. It is a pity that Opposition Members cannot rediscover some of the virtues of democracy which lie at the heart of our voluntary policy.

Mr. James Lamond: Is it not obvious that Opposition Members who denied the existence of the social contract now demonstrate by every question that they have not grasped the concept of the social contract? Would it not be advisable for those Opposition Members to read the able speech which was delivered by my right hon. Friend in Aberdeen last Wednesday, in which he outlined what has been achieved and what has still to be achieved by the social contract?

Mr. Foot: If my hon. Friend provokes me too far I may try to deliver that speech again now, but, if I did that. Mr. Speaker, you might call me to order. I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now make a further statement on the operation of the pay guidelines of the social contract in the public sector.

Mr. Foot: As I have explained to the House on several occasions, we do not maintain a detailed monitoring system on adherence to the pay guidelines in either the public or the private sector. If the hon. Member will indicate upon which aspect of the matter he wishes me to comment further, I shall do my best to assist.

Mr. Latham: In view of the Chancellor's policy of reducing deficits in nationalised industries, will settlements outside the guidelines in the public sector be paid for by increased prices or by a reduced work force?

Mr. Foot: When it is negotiating, each nationalised industry has to take into account the desirability of allegiance to the guidelines and the economic consequences of going beyond them. In some cases a nationalised industry may


choose to go beyond the guidelines, but it has to accept responsibility for that settlement, which will have financial implications which have to be taken into account. On several occasions the Government have indicated that.

Mr. Ioan Evans: As the Opposition do not wish to bring in a compulsory wages policy and have not suggested an alternative, surely all we have is the social contract, and it behoves all of us in the House to see that it works?

Mr. Foot: Yes, but there are some parts of the social contract about which we could hardly expect Opposition Members to be enthusiastic. As I said in my Aberdeen speech to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) referred, a large part of the social contract is unfinished business that we want to finish as speedily as we can. There is a whole series of legislative measures that we think can contribute greatly to the health of industrial relations. That has to be taken into account as well.

Mr. Hayhoe: Why cannot the Secretary of State answer the supplementary question put to him earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) and indicate at least one major settlement which as a result of the social contract was lower than it would otherwise have been—or is the essence of the social contract that the Government do what the TUC wants them to do and get nothing in return?

Mr. Foot: I know that that is the kind of imbecile slogan that is repeated by Opposition Members throughout the country in their attempt to assist the Government in overcoming our economic problems, but it has nothing to do with the facts. If I responded to the hon. Gentleman's invitation about one settlement, no doubt the Opposition would ask why, if I have done it in respect of one settlement, I have not done it in the case of all the others. In January I gave the House an indication of the overall position when I said that I thought that 75 per cent. of the people covered in the settlements were within the guidelines. But when I said that, I also made clear what were the limitations in the declaration I was making—because the Government do not have available full statistics about every settlement. That has to be taken

into account as well, and that is another reason why it is not possible to give the statistics for which hon. Gentlemen clamour. I do not think that they clamour for the statistics because they think they might help; they do so because they hope that they will be able to cause more disruption.

Oral Answers to Questions — F. B. Atkins and Sons Ltd (Dispute)

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will arrange for the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to assist in settling the dispute affecting the business of F. B. Atkins and Sons Limited of Derby, whose vehicles are being blacklisted by the Transport and General Workers' Union from using the container base at Perry Barr, Birmingham.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): As I told the hon. Member in answer to a Written Question on 11th April, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service is endeavouring to assist in the resolution of this dispute.

Mr. Rost: Why do not the Government support the lorry drivers and the management of the firm, who are being bullied and blackmailed by an official of the Transport and General Workers' Union into breaching the guidelines of the social contract? Is it not time the Government came off the fence and defended their own social contract, and prevented jobs from being lost?

Mr. Booth: I understand that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has arranged a meeting between the parties to the dispute, which is to take place tomorrow afternoon. In view of that fact, I do not think that it would be helpful in seeking a solution for me to comment on any allegations against either of the parties to the dispute.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have in my possession a copy of a letter from one of Atkins' shop stewards giving details of gross violations in the regulations concerning drivers' hours and of undue management pressure on drivers? That letter was sent to the Minister for Transport with a request for an inquiry. Is my hon. Friend further aware that the reason why these vehicles are being blacked in Birmingham


is not to do with wages—which is a red herring—but concerns the firm's insistence on using tachographs, which is against the national policy of the Transport and General Workers' Union?

Mr. Booth: For a considerable time there has been no legal obligation on hauliers to fit tachographs. I understand that a complaint has been made against the firm in respect of the excessive hours worked by its drivers. That is a matter for the licensing authority and is currently being investigated. On the other matters raised by my hon. Friend, I give him the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), that it is not advisable for me to comment on the dispute if we wish to see a solution to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Unemployed Persons

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average length of time that those registered as unemployed in 1974 remained unemployed; how many successfully applied for retraining; and how many subsequently found employment.

Mr. Harold Walker: The average length of unemployment for all unemployed persons who registered with the Employment Service in 1974 is estimated to have been about eight weeks. During the year about 49,000 unemployed persons successfully applied for retraining. Further information is not available for unemployed persons, but of all persons who successfully applied for retraining, over half successfully completed their course and about 80 per cent. of these found jobs in the occupation for which they were training.

Mr. Madel: In view of the changing pattern of employment due to changes in the price of energy and advances in technology, will the Minister consider setting up an inquiry into apprenticeship courses with a view to making possible changes? Will he also try to get closer co-operation between Government retraining centres, local education authorities and employment exchanges, so that the country is better prepared to face the challenge of unemployment in the mid-1970s, which will differ from anything we have previously experienced?

Mr. Walker: The pattern of apprenticeships and their duration has been changing significantly over the past few years. This is a dynamic and continuing change. As to closer liaison between the various agencies, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Manpower Services Commission was established about 12 months ago and the various agencies are taking significant steps in this direction. We are addressing our attention to the matter.

Mr. Leadbitter: I am sure my hon. Friend will accept that the figure he has given for the average length of unemployment on a national basis is bound to be misleading and that he will not wish that impression to get abroad. Does he agree that to help the House to analyse the position more precisely it would be of assistance if regional figures could be included in the Official Report, especially those relating to people of 45 years of age and above?

Mr. Walker: I stressed in my original reply that the duration of unemployment to which I referred was the average length. I take the point that my hon. Friend is making, but I think he will accept that there are considerable difficulties in undertaking regular regional analyses on the duration of unemployment. None the less, I shall bear in mind what he said.

Oral Answers to Questions — Travel Costs

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the contribution to unemployment made by the cost of travel.

Mr. John Fraser: The cost of travel is one of many factors affecting people's job preferences but it is not considered to make a large contribution to unemployment.

Mr. Freud: Is the Minister aware that I and many other hon. Members representing rural constituencies have workers who are taking home £32 or £33 a week and who are forced to spend £9 a week on getting to and from work? Is he further aware that such men would be better off by staying at home and claiming, benefits? When will the Secretary of State grant some sort of travel allowance? Does the Minister understand that constituents who are spending that much money in travelling to and from work are getting tired of seeing their neighbours


receiving more money whilst staying at home?

Mr. Fraser: First, I do not think that it would be practicable or proper to introduce a travel allowance. Secondly, I remind the hon. Gentleman that local authorities will spend over £100 million in 1975–76 in subsidising local bus services and that total Government support for the rail industry will amount to about £500 million in that year.

Mr. Costain: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the increased cost of fares is having a very serious effect on those who commute to London over long distances because they cannot obtain jobs more locally? Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer so as to get some income tax relief for those who have high travel costs?

Mr. Fraser: That is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The difficulty is that it would not be possible to distinguish between those who are forced to travel to their work and those people who incur travel costs as a matter of personal choice. It may not be a good planning concept to encourage commuting over long distances. Surely it would be better to try to have work close to people's homes rather than to encourage long periods of travel.

Oral Answers to Questions — Health and Safety

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the progress achieved in establishing safety committees under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Mr. Harold Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that before safety committees can be established on a statutory basis at the request of the workers' representatives, regulations must be made under Section 2(7) of the Health and Safety at Work Act. As I informed my hon. Friend on 25th March, the Health and Safety Commission has under active consideration proposals for the making of regulations regarding safety representatives and safety committees. I have no doubt that the commission will wish to present its proposals to me at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that his answer is very disappointing? Does he also accept that the Health and Safety Commission has been tardy in producing these regulations, and that for the proper implementation of the Health and Safety at Work Act he will need the cooperation of the Factory Inspectorate? Will he now advise the commission not to go ahead with the proposed reorganisation, which involves the closure of dozens of local offices? Is he aware that the Factory Inspectorate is opposed to that measure? Will he now direct the commission to show a more energetic attitude and to make more constructive proposals to get the Act implemented, instead of trying to cover up what is an administrative morass?

Mr. Walker: Let me assure my hon. Friend that he is no more eager than I am to see the regulations put into effect concerning workers' safety representatives and committees. My hon. Friend has suggested that the commission has been tardy in its approach. I assure him that in its short life—it has had a life of less than six months—it has already met 20 times. It is meeting at this moment to discuss precisely the point that he has raised. I am not suggesting that it will come up with the answer this afternoon, but I hope that I can assure my hon. Friend that it is working very hard. He referred to the proposed reorganisation. Let me assure him that as yet there is no proposed reorganisation of the Factory Inspectorate, or any decision to have one.

Mr. Madel: Does the Minister accept that an employee can be a useful member of a safety committee whether or not he is a member of a trade union? As the Act has only just appeared on the statute book, why are the Government contemplating making changes by way of the Employment Protection Bill? Does the Minister not agree that this is an unnecessary measure?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone that, given the political circumstances of the time, he and his hon. Friends imposed this provision on the then Government contrary to their will. At the time we made clear the overwhelming reasons for it being desirable for the employment of safety representatives to be on the basis of recognised trade


unions. We pointed out to the House the industrial relations consequences of the decision that Conservative Members imposed on the Government. During the 1970–74 Government their experiences in industrial relations should have shown how incompetent they are and how bad and ill-advised is their judgment on these issues. That is why we shall reverse that decision.

Sir David Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has yet prescribed a list of cases for exception from the general duty of every employer under Section 2(3) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to prepare a written statement of general policy with respect to the health and safety at work of employees.

Mr. Harold Walker: No. The Health and Safety Commission is now urgently consulting both sides of industry on proposals which, if agreed by the Government, would exempt employers with fewer than five employees except where there are workers' safety representatives.

Sir D. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman do all he can to end the uncertainty in this matter and bear in mind that there are employers with more than five people working for them who still have an excellent record of health and safety at work? Could not those small employers be rewarded by exemption?

Mr. Walker: I think that the commission has arrived at a reasonable figure, but there will be consultations and no doubt it will be considering whether that figure is right. I shall draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks to the commission's attention.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the opinion of many Labour Members there are already far too man exemptions—for example, the whole of the agricultural industry?

Mr. Walker: I repeat that the commission has probably got the situation about right. Where there are a small number of employees, employers no doubt find it easier to communicate with their workers. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that it was regrettable that last year the Conservatives deprived agricultural workers of the full protection of

this legislation. We intend to extend the legislation when the Employment Protection Bill comes before the House.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no exemption in respect of gas, oil and chemical installations in respect not merely of an industry's own employees but where the concentration of risk affects the surrounding public?

Mr. Walker: I understand the point, which the hon. Gentleman has repeatedly made. He can be assured that the commission is fully aware of his anxieties. I know that its members are anxious to do what they can to safeguard the position not only of his constituents but of others who are exposed to similar risks.

Oral Answers to Questions — Community Industry (Young Persons)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give a progress report on the community industry schemes for the employment of young people.

Mr. John Fraser: Community industry has been extended to 20 areas, and now employs 1,518 young people.

Mr. Canavan: Will my hon. Friend consult the Department of Education and Science and the Scottish Education Department with a view to the possibility of dovetailing the community industry scheme into the final school year curriculum for young school leavers? Will he also give consideration to the starting of such a scheme in Stirlingshire, where at present 235 boys and 187 girls are out of work? Is he aware that there is a possibility of the figures increasing with the next batch of young school leavers after the June school leaving date?

Mr. Fraser: On my hon. Friend's last point, I shall certainly consider his proposal and determine what can be done. My hon. Friend's first point goes rather wide, but I think that it is worth considering the possibility of community industry providing work experience. This is a matter that will have to be discussed not only with the Scottish Education Department but with the Department of Education and Science, local authorities and other professional bodies. It is one that is worth investigating.

Mr. Lane: Will the Government do more to see that community industry schemes are available in the city areas, where they are desperately needed?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, most certainly. I think that they have a valuable contribution to make in the stress of inner city areas. I have looked recently at one such scheme in Lewisham and I shall look at another one in Manchester. I shall press that point of view.

Mr. Fernyhough: As this has been one of the most successful schemes ever initiated by any Government, will my hon. Friend ensure, as far as it lies within his power, that whatever other cuts there may be in public expenditure there will be none in this area?

Mr. Fraser: I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Department has authorised the continuation of community industry. The present authorised capacity is 2,000 and the number that I have given is well within that capacity. There is no question of any cuts.

Mr. Prior: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that we wish to see this scheme expanded, particularly in the areas which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) has mentioned? Is the Minister aware that it is particularly important that it should be extended, as it is generally accepted that those now leaving school will experience more difficulty in getting jobs than has been the case at any time since the end of the war? Anything we can do to help them by something like community industry schemes will greatly ease the pressure and make for a better social system in Britain.

Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman will understand my enthusiasm for community industry, but I would be deceiving the House if I suggested that the scheme, which has a capacity of 2,000 entrants at any one time, could cope with the much larger number of school leavers. That is why the Government have taken other measures, including the expansion of training facilities, to deal with the problems which may be met by those leaving school during the summer.

Oral Answers to Questions — North-West Wales

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest

unemployment rates for men in the Caernarvon, Pwllheli and Porthmadog employment areas, respectively.

Mr. John Fraser: At 10th March, the rates of unemployment for males were 11·7 per cent. in the Caernarvon travel-to-work area and 10·4 per cent. in the Pwllheli travel-to-work area, which includes Porthmadog.

Mr. Wigley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware how disgraceful those figures are and how much they will be worsened by the Chancellor's Budget, which will lead directly to more redundancies in my constituency? Is he aware that that rate of unemployment, if it applied throughout the whole of the kingdom, would lead to a revolution? What will the Government do about this, and when will they do it?

Mr. Fraser: I respond to the hon. Gentleman by saying that the Government have done a great deal for North-West Wales. The Government made it a special development area. They have doubled the regional employment premium. They have tightened up the operation of industrial development certificates and there are further jobs in prospect in the area which come from the Dinorwic pumped water scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that this Government have done rather more than their predecessors in this part of Wales.

Sir A. Meyer: What have the Government done in North-East Wales, which has a comparable rate of unemployment?

Mr. Fraser: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tables a Question about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — Employment Protection Bill

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from employers and from employers' organisations about the proposals in his Employment Protection Bill.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received on the Employment Protection Bill since its publication.

Mr. Foot: About 45 individuals and organisations have sent in comments since


the Bill was published, the great majority of which have come from employers and employers' organisations. They suggested that the Bill was generally biased against employers, and expressed concern about the additional cost of the proposals—particularly those concerned with guarantee payments and maternity. They also suggested that the provisions on recognised terms and conditions were likely to have inflationary effects.

Mr. Lane: Will the Secretary of State accept that many companies in my constituency are appalled by the implications of the legislation? How can he reconcile his burdensome Bill with the remarks by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday about the need for a healthy private sector?

Mr. Foot: If companies feel as the hon. Gentleman suggests, they are quite unnecessarily alarmed. Of course employers have some questions and doubts about the Bill, which they have put to us, but we have had discussions with many organisations, most of which understood the Bill better after the discussions than they did before. That may not be saying a great deal, but that has been the situation. At any rate, I hope that that has been our purpose. I believe that as the Bill goes through the House in the next few weeks more and more people will realise that the legislation as a whole makes a greater contribution to better industrial relations, and that employers, as well as everybody else, will have to make their contribution.

Mr. McCrindle: Although I do not doubt that provision of payment where no work is available and freedom from dismissal as a result of pregnancy are desirable matters in themselves, should they not more properly be provided through the social services? Is this the right time to impose additional burdens of expenditure on employers when they are already suffering badly in the present industrial situation?

Mr. Foot: All these questions will be fully debated when the Bill comes before the House very soon. It has already been presented, and discussions will take place very soon. That will be the best time at which to discuss these matters. What the Bill is seeking to do on the guaranteed week is to attempt to apply to

manual workers a provision which non-manual workers have enjoyed for generations, without anybody regarding it as remarkable. Conservative Members should be more generous on this subject. They should realise that what we are trying to do in that part of the Bill and in respect of maternity benefits is to catch up with the proper practice that has been followed in many firms, and certainly in many other parts of the world, for a lone time.

Mr. Clemitson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the £100 million cost, quoted as the figure which the Bill would represent as an extra cost to employers, represents a one-half millionth part of the total wage and salary bill?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend, in quoting that figure, has put the matter in proper proportion. All the Bill is doing is to make a small beginning in regard to a guaranteed wage. We say that in present economic circumstances we cannot bring in the provision on a larger scale, but once the principle is established it can be carried further at a much later stage.

Mr. Hayhoe: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the description of the Bill given by one of the most distinguished of labour commentators—namely, that it represents a bonanza for the unions—is an example of giving the TUC what it wants under the social contract and getting nothing in return?

Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to Mr. Woodrow Wyatt as a distinguished labour commentator—

Mr. Hayhoe: No. I was referring to the Financial Times correspondent.

Mr. Foot: That is quite all right—so long as the hon. Gentleman is not referring to Mr. Woodrow Wyatt in such a way. That is at any rate an advance. I was glad to hear the universal derision with which that name was greeted. Certainly Mr. John Elliot is a most eminent labour correspondent—not "Labour" in the political sense, but one of the best labour commentators. He produced an extremely intelligent and balanced article on the working of the Bill. I did not agree with every conclusion, and I do not believe that Mr. John Elliot wrote the headline. Headlines are often written by people who are not acquainted with the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY MEMBERSHIP

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the operation of the arrangements announced on 7th April for Ministers who disagree with Government policies to have Questions addressed to them transferred to other Ministers.

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the operation of the arrangement laid down in his Written Answer of 7th April concerning the answering of Questions to Ministers who themselves differ from the Government's recommendation on membership of the EEC.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the working of the arrangements laid down in his Written Answer of 7th April about the answering of Parliamentary Questions to Ministers who differ from the Government's recommendation on membership of the EEC.

Mr. Nigel: asked the Prime Minister whether he satisfied with the operation of the arrangements laid down in his Written Answer of 7th April concerning the answering of Parliamentary Questions addressed to Ministers who themselves differ from the Government's recommendation on membership of the EEC.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Tebbit: Has the Prime Minister read the Hansard report of yesterday's questions and answers, involving his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry? In that exchange he will notice that his right hon. Friend resolutely refused to say whether our industrial investment prospects are better for our being in Europe or would be worsened by our leaving Europe. As the Secretary of State would not say anything on that score, will the Prime Minister now say it for him?

The Prime Minister: I read yesterday's Hansard, and I compliment the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) on having forecast yesterday's Hansard two weeks ago, when he tabled this Question.

Mr. Tebbit: It was Inevitable.

The Prime Minister: Having read yesterday's Hansard, I could not feel very convinced that most of the questions put to my right hon. Friend were genuinely seeking information. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and his Conservative colleagues that it is about time they devised a policy, instead of spending all their time putting questions of this kind.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Is the Prime Minister aware that I was one hon. Member who asked the Secretary of State for Industry a supplementary question yesterday? Is he further aware that I was quite unable to get the information which I tried to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman, namely, whether investment would go up or down depending on our withdrawing from or staying in the Common Market? Will he assure his right hon. Friend that at least until referendum day he should keep within the guidelines laid down by the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, I was aware that the hon. Gentleman was the originator of one of the questions. That rather adds strength to the force of my reply about the quality of the particular question. On the question of investment, and gains to Britain, I have tried, in this House and outside, to suggest to the campaign organisations on both sides not to exaggerate the consequences of being in or out. We all know that the answer to our economic problems lies within this country. The most complete answer to the total absence of Conservative policy is to be found in the speech made last night by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Prime Minister comment on the speech made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition during the weekend at Stratford, when he implied that the Conservative Party could not be declared as accepting a "No" verdict in the forthcoming referendum? Does the Prime Minister not agree that that is a repetition of the old trick of "Heads I win, tails you lose"? Will he confirm that even the consenting Ministers of the Cabinet will accept the wishes of the British people in this matter?

The Prime Minister: I cannot comment on the speech referred to. There is no


ministerial responsibility—and as far as I can see there is no Opposition responsibility, either—for the various speeches of disassociation by members of the previous Conservative Government, which are made by the present Opposition Front Bench speakers, such as they are. My hon. Friend has made a significant point.
These questions, otiose, tedious and diversionary as they are, might add force if the result was that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, whom I now see leaning forward, were to say that she will accept the verdict of the British people on the referendum.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister clarify the position—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is asking the Prime Minister a question. She must be heard in silence.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that I should accept the constitutional position with regard to Members of Parliament, whether or not they were tied by the referendum vote, the constitutional position being that they cannot be fettered by the result of the referendum, as the Prime Minister said on 23rd January in c. 1751? Will he clarify the position of the Labour Party? Is the Prime Minister saying that whatever the turnout in the referendum, whatever the vote, whatever the majority however small, every member of the Labour Party will be expected to vote in accordance with the result?

The Prime Minister: I repeat what I said during two General Elections, a precedent which the right hon. Lady may care to consider following. I said that we would accept the majority verdict of the British people in that respect. The Government will certainly accept it. I have said that we shall do that. However, the right hon. Lady has not answered the question whether she will accept the verdict of the British people.
I thought that the right hon. Lady complained about fetters—or something of that kind—on Members of Parliament. She was fettered by a promise that Britain would not go into the EEC without the full-hearted consent of the British people. Will she say what she did with her fetters on that occasion?

Mrs. Thatcher: Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister is paid to answer questions and not to ask them, and that clearly on that criterion he does not earn his keep, will he now say whether the answer to my question is "Yes" or "No"?

The Prime Minister: I shall answer that question. First, I deplore the personal attack contained in the opening remarks of the Leader of the Opposition about the relationship between the salaries of Prime Ministers and productivity, because what she said was a terrible attack on the previous Prime Minister, since all his answers were in the form of questions to me. I do that occasionally.
The answer to the question is "Yes". We shall accept the verdict of the British people by a majority verdict in the referendum.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister accept that everyone in the House would agree with the concept of the full-hearted consent of the British people, whatever that might mean? If there were a 40 per cent. poll, with 21 per cent. of the voters voting one way and 19 per cent. the other, would my right hon. Friend be assured that neither he nor anyone else would bind me as to how I vote?

The Prime Minister: I have never regarded my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) as a particularly bindable person to anything. I find this very interesting. My hon. Friend will be gratified by the Opposition cheers at what he has said. I do not recall that he received such cheers when he spoke on the Civil List, for example. However, we find odd alliances across the Floor of the House.
This is a hypothetical question. However, if my hon. Friend, who, I gather, is actively campaigning in these matters, has so little faith in his persuasive powers as to expect such a low poll, he will have to form his own judgment about the result.
I said that we should accept the verdict of the British people. If a considerable number decide that they do not want to vote, we shall just have to take account of those who do want to vote.

Mr. Hurd: When the Prime Minister was first elected to the House, did not he feel, as did some of us, that he was


sent here to exercise his judgment in the best interests of the nation? Will he please cease reading us lectures on arrogance and allow us to exercise our own judgment?

The Prime Minister: I always listen with great care to what the hon. Gentleman says about these questions. However, this is a unique occasion of a vote by the British people. This is its exercise of sovereignty. After the campaign in 1970, during which the hon. Gentleman campaigned, those pledges were broken, because the people were not consulted.
As regards the hon. Gentleman's remarks about exercising the rights of a Member of Parliament, nothing could be more blatant than the whipping of Conservative Government supporters at every stage of the European Communities Bill, from which not one Minister was allowed to dissociate himself.

Mr. Hooley: The European Parliament has now asserted its control over the Regional Development Fund. However much Cabinet responsibilities may be shuffled around in the present peculiar fashion, does not the Prime Minister agree that important powers will slip away irrevocably from the House if we remain in the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not accept that interpretation. This is a difficult question about the distinction between compulsory expenditure for the Assembly and non-compulsory expenditure. What it has now is, within the limitation set by the increase in the gross product of the Community, the right to propose additional grants for regional aid within the total of the regional fund.
That matter will be looked at again. However, I believe that it does not derogate from the power of this Parliament. If the Assembly decided, it could increase the regional fund. During the past few weeks we have received substantial aid from the regional fund pledged to this country. We have retained our full control over national aid as regards the Regional Development Fund. At the summit meeting the Heads of Government accepted that, as regards regional matters, what any national Government decide is in the interests of that country is to be regarded as the right answer in these matters.

Mr. Thorpe: Reverting to the referendum and recalling the Prime Minister's arguments against a referendum up to 1972, does he accept that there are still some right hon. and hon. Members in this House who believe that the promises that they made to the electorate at the last election are still binding? If he wishes to underline the sovereignty of Parliament by suggesting that those promises can now be broken, the right hon. Gentleman will not take the whole House along with him.
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the successful way in which the transfer of Questions to Ministers is working? Is it not a fact that it has not been found necessary to have Questions transferred? Dr. Johnson said that conversation was given to conceal our thoughts. For anti-Market Ministers, Questions are given to conceal their thoughts.

The Prime Minister: I think that the expert on Dr. Johnson, the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), is standing in the back row of the Opposition benches now.
Regarding the election pledges of the Liberal Party, there is a more substantial figure on the Liberal bench than the right hon. Gentleman can ever hope to be—a Member who was elected in a by-election on a promise to support a referendum on the Common Market. Towards the end of the election, when I think that he was getting a little desperate—he proved that he was right to be so—I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that if the Labour Party were elected on the manifesto he would support it in a referendum.

Mr. Lipton: Despite the tender solicitude shown by Opposition Members for the unity of the present administration, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that they are equally unhappy whether the Labour Government are divided or not?

The Prime Minister: That is probably true—indeed, it is certainly true. I am touched by the solicitude of Opposition Members, as my hon. Friend fairly described it. I think that it is the only escape that they have, because they have no policy on any subject, as became clear in the debate on the Budget, for


four days. One day the right hon. Lady, who does not like answering questions, from wherever they may come, will tell us whether she supports the speech made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) yesterday. The Opposition have also talked about cutting expenditure. One day the right hon. Lady will tell us a single item which she will cut—and it will not be defence.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the purpose of Prime Minister' Questions is to ask questions about Government policy, not about Opposition policy, and to receive answers on them? In the light of the difficulties into which the Secretary of State for Industry got at Question Time yesterday, and in view of the Prime Minister's unique ability to face both sides of every issue, would it not be better if all Questions to dissenting Ministers were in future transferred to him?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman took so long getting into this House, as we know from successive elections, despite the disreputable character of his campaign in Slough—[Hon. Members: "Withdraw."]—I am delighted that so many Tories are backing that campaign—that, unfortunately, we missed his company from 1970 to 1974, when every question put to the then Prime Minister by the syndicate which I think he has now joined as a kind of consenting Member asked the Prime Minister to put a question to me. I do it occasionally, because I am not getting any lead from the Opposition. It is very bad for democracy. That is why I am trying to help them.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way of over-

coming the Opposition's difficulty in interpreting the meaning of his Written Answer on 7th April would be to speed the passage of the Referendum Bill, which would enable the whole House to accept the traditional democratic British practice of accepting a simple majority verdict of the British people on all questions?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I understand from what I read in the Conservative Press, which on these matters, at any rate, must be believed, that the occupants the Conservative Front Bench—I am sure that their lead will be followed—intend, whatever they may think about the Referendum Bill, on which the House has taken a decision, to facilitate the passage of the Committee and Report stages while pressing, as they have every right to do, particular issues on which they believe the Bill should be amended.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: I will now give my ruling on the matter of privilege which was raised yesterday.
I have considered the complaint raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) that a solicitor's letter which he had received constituted a breach of privilege. I have considered his submission carefully and read the Questions in Hansard to which he referred. I have come to the conclusion that the action with which he is threatened does not appear to relate to any proceedings in Parliament. I do not consider, therefore, that I should be justified in giving his complaint precedence over the Orders of the Day.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENABLING)

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the powers of local authorities in relation to commercial and trading activities.
Parliament and central Government doubt the ability of local governors, within the straitjacket of the present system, to run local affairs.
Those are not my words. They are from the Redcliffe-Maud Report.

Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many of us are interested in this subject. May we have some quietness from hon. Members departing?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his usual help in these matters.

Mr. Clemitson: Many hon. Members may be suspicious of the growth of certain supranational bodies. But what of our suspicion of our own local government? We have enshrined the principle that local authorities can perform only such specific functions as have a statutory basis. If they step out of line, we have a convenient doctrine, ultra vires, with which to clobber them. In other words, if local authorities wish to perform any function outside what have come to be regarded as their "proper" functions, they must either seek special statutory powers at great expense of time, money and effort or resort to some circuitous dodges to get round the blessed doctrine.
I should like to quote from a letter which I recently received from the secretary of one of our great cities. He writes:
My own council has for some time been most concerned at the restrictive effects of what is commonly referred to as the 'ultra vires' rule which, in their view, unreasonably inhibits them from engaging in commercial and trading activities which they feel would be of direct benefit to the citizens as consumers and indirect benefit to them as ratepayers. … Indeed, leading members of my council are at the present moment considering whether to seek local Act powers in this regard.
Our latest attempt at local government reform hardly improved the situation. Indeed, if anything, it made it worse as the ancient charters of the boroughs

went into the sausage machine of reorganisation.
This may not seem to be the best of times to propose greater powers for local authorities, which are hardly the most popular of British institutions at the moment. Criticism of them rises at an even faster rate than does the rise of the rate demands that drop on the nation's doormats. Yet I believe that it is not at all a bad time to do what the Bill proposes—that is, to give a general enabling power to local authorities to perform functions in the spheres of trading and commerce. One of the recent causes of the unpopularity of local government is precisely that it is set about by limitations, that local enterprise and initiative are stifled, and that local authorities have had heaped upon them by the central Government just those functions which, by their nature, are very expensive and nonprofit-making. As their expenditures have increased, so their real powers have decreased. Municipal enterprise has withered on the vine.
Those who are so quick to raise their hands in horror at the prospect of more municipalisation should consider these simple facts. In 1913, on the eve of the First World War, 80 per cent. of water, 65 per cent. of electricity and 40 per cent. of gas were supplied by local authorities and 80 per cent. of tramways were run by them. It may be that gas and electricity, for example, are better produced and managed on a national scale, but there are many things which can be produced and many services which can be performed better on a local scale.
The spirit of local authority enterprise which flourished at the turn of the century could be resurrected and developed in many new and imaginative ways. Why should local councils not run, for example, estate agency services? Why should they not perform—if you will pardon me saying so, Mr. Speaker, in view of my previous experience—undertaking since they control many of the cemeteries and crematoria in this country? Why should they not sell local products and engage in manufacturing enterprises and a hundred and one different activities? In other words, why should local authorities not be entrepreneurs? Why should they not become initiators rather than merely unpopular


agents for an increasing range of powers thrust upon them by the central Government?
If they were given the chance to be creative it would provide an invaluable injection of interest into local government. Instead of them being the whipping boys for the central Government, why should they not become innovators and initiators as they once were? If it be asked where the check is on all this, the answer is simply in the local electorate. The local authority is responsible in proper democratic fashion to the local electors, and that surely is where accountability should lie and where the checks should operate. I need not mention the functions of the district auditor as well.
The one score on which local authorities are most unpopular—that they are the imposers of local taxation and the big spenders of much public money—does not apply to the powers this Bill would confer. Far from it. Local enterprise should, and I believe would, be no drain on the public purse. On the contrary, I believe it would be of some help to it. In a number of activities, local authorities could provide better services at the same cost—or lower—as services provided at the moment or services which now are not provided at all.
In 1973, within the severe limitations which exist on their activities at the moment, local authority trading services achieved a gross trading surplus of £154 million, and that came from a range of enterprises, from Birmingham's bank to Sheffield's printing works and—dare I mention it?—Luton Airport. Would it not make much more sense to enable local authorities to earn more money through local authority enterprise than through local lotteries? Would it not be better to encourage interest in local enterprises than in the number of the winning ticket in the weekly lottery?
There is a perfectly legitimate fear of the growth of remote State power. There is a growing demand for democracy to extend beyond the limits of the narrowly political into industry and into every facet and sphere of social life. Yet suspicion of local authorities continues. We are reluctant to enable and encourage local authorities to reach out into new areas of enterprise, and yet democracy needs

small units, units of such a size that words like "participation", "accountability" and "involvement" can take on real meaning and not be merely dry academic abstractions.
I leave the last word as the first with the recommendations of the RedcliffeMaud Report:
Local authorities must—and can—be given a real measure of freedom in reaching their own decisions and in settling, within broad national policies, their own priorities. They must be allowed to develop their own methods, to use their own initiative, to experiment.
This Bill is one attempt to translate those words into law.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Latham: Before I came into the House, I thought that I might be seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to oppose the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) in his attempt to bring in his Bill. Having heard his speech, I am all the more convinced that it should not be allowed to pass without challenge. I intend to oppose it briefly because the House must get on to more important business, and we know that the Bill has no chance of passing into law in the current Session of Parliament. I want to declare an interest as a director in the building industry.
When I go to my constituency every weekend, there is no subject to which my constituents draw my attention more frequently than the position of the ratepayer. Ratepayers are very gravely concerned about the burdens which have been placed upon them in recent years, and particularly at the present time. I can think of nothing which ratepayers would want less than increases in local government staffing. Having listened to the hon. Member for Luton, East describe the new duties and powers which he wants to give local government, I dread to think of the number of staff who would be involved and the burden that would fall on ratepayers as a result.
The hon. Member referred briefly to the ultra vires rule. There is no greater defence of ratepayers than this rule. By placing on local authorities the duty to be able to point to a specific legal power to do anything on behalf of the ratepayers, there is a very great constraint on them going into activities in which


they have no particular expertise or experience. The Labour Party manifesto in the last General Election, with which the hon. Member's Bill deals, said,
Local councils' lending will be expanded so that they can play a major part in helping house purchasers and keep down costs by supplying unified services for estate agency, surveying, conveyancing and mortgages".
Can it really be believed that local authorities, already struggling with shortages of staff in many directions to fulfil all their existing duties under the law, will be able to cope competently with conveyancing, estate agency, mortgages and all the rest? Surely, no one, unless he is blinded by political prejudice, can believe that local authorities have the expertise or power to deal with these things.
I know that Labour Members would like to expand local authority powers to cover endless possible spheres of activity. However, the hon. Member for Luton, East did not tell us, and we have not heard it from the Tribune Group or any-one else, where the money and the staff are to come from and what control the

ratepayers will have over these new activities. The hon. Member for Luton, East talked about local authorities benefiting from the profits of these commercial activities. It may not have escaped the attention of some hon. Members that occasionally, particularly under this Government, businesses lose money. If the local authorities lose money, it is not the shareholders or the business men but the ratepayers who bear the costs every time. The ratepayers are going to be landed with huge bills if local authorities are given the powers that the hon. Member for Luton, East wishes them to have. It would be wholly improper at a time when the country is facing a rates revolution for the House to give leave for the hon. Member to introduce his Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 124.

Division No. 175.]
AYES
[3.50 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Edelman, Maurice
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Ashton, Joe
Edge, Geoff
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Atkinson, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bates, Alf
English, Michael
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Beith, A. J.
Ennals, David
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarnan)
John, Brynmor


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, John (Newton)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Bishop, E. S.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Booth, Albert
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Judd, Frank


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Flannery, Martin
Kaufman, Gerald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kelley, Richard


Brown, Robert C.(Newcastle W)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kerr, Russell


Buchanan, Richard
Forrester, John
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lamborn, Harry


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lamond, James


Canavan, Dennis
Freeson, Reginald
Leadbitter, Ted


Cant, R. B.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Lee, John


Cartwright, John
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Loyden, Eddie


Clemitson, Ivor
Ginsburg, David
Luard, Evan


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Gourlay, Harry
McElhone, Frank


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Grant, George (Morpeth)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Grant, John (Islington C)
McNamara, Kevin


Corbett, Robin
Grocott, Bruce
Madden, Max


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Magee, Bryan


Cryer, Bob
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mahon, Simon


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hardy, Peter
Marks, Kenneth


Dalyell, Tam
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davidson, Arthur
Hatton, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Meacher, Michael


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Deakins, Eric
Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Klibride)


Delargy, Hugh
Horam, John
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Moonman, Eric


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Newens, Stanley


Eadie, Alex
Hunter, Adam
Noble, Mike




O'Halloran, Michael
Sedgemore, Brian
Torney, Tom


O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Selby, Harry
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Orbach, Maurice
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ovenden, John
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Owen, Dr David
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Ward, Michael


Padley, Walter
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkins, David


Palmer, Arthur
Silverman, Julius
Weetch, Ken


Park, George
Skinner, Dennis
Weitzman, David


Parry, Robert
Small, William
Wellbeloved, James


Pavitt, Laurie
Spearing, Nigel
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Stallard, A. W.
Whitlock, William


Perry, Ernest
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wigley, Dafydd


Phipps, Dr Colin
Stoddart, David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Price, William (Rugby)
Strang, Gavin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Radice, Giles
Summersklli, Hon Dr Shirley
Woodall, Alec


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Swain, Thomas
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)



Roderick, Caerwyn
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mr. George Rodgers and


Rooker, J. W.
Tierney, Sydney
Mr. Terry Walker.


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Tinn, James





NOES


Adley, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley


Banks, Robert
Hannam, John
Pardee, John


Benyon, W.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Parkinson, Cecil


Berry, Hon Anthony
Havers, Sir Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, John
Holland, Philip
Penhallgon, David


Blaker, Peter
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Body, Richard
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Raison, Timothy


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rathbone, Tim


Brittan, Leon
Hurd, Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Buck, Antony
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Budgen, Nick
James, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Bulmer, Esmond
Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Burden, F. A.
Jessel, Toby
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Clegg, Walter
Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cope, John
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Cormack, Patrick
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Silvester, Fred


Costain, A. P.
Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Drayson, Burnaby
Lloyd, Ian
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Durant, Tony
Luce, Richard
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sproat, Iain


Emery, Peter
Macfarlane, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stanley, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Marten, Neil
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mates, Michael
Stokes, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maude, Angus
Tebbit, Norman


Freud, Clement
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
 Molyneaux, James
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Monro, Hector
Weatheriil, Bernard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Whltelaw, Rt Hon William


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wiggin, Jerry


Goodhew, Victor
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)



Gray, Hamish
Mudd, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Neave, Airey
Mr. Michael Latham and


Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neubert, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill order to be brought in by Mr. Ivor Clemitson, Mr. George Rodgers, Mr. Ken Weetch, Mr. John Ovenden, Mr. Gwilym Roberts, Mr. Paul B. Rose, Mr. Joseph Dean, Mr. John Cartwright and Mr. Jim Marshall.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENABLING)

Mr. Ivor Clemitson accordingly presented a Bill to extend the powers of local authorities in relation to commercial and trading activities: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th July and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

Orders of the Day — REFERENDUM BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. GEORGE THOMAS in the Chair]

Clause 1

HOLDING OF REFERENDUM

4.0 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (4A) of this section'.

The Chairman: With this we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 26, 29 and 31, with Amendments (b), (a) and (c) to Amendment No. 31, and Government Amendments Nos. 33, 35, 37 and 38.

Mr. Rodgers: Amendments Nos. 31 and 38 are related to Amendment No. 13. The Committee will see that these amendments are designed to make special provision for those members of the Armed Services and their spouses who are eligible to be registered as Service voters to vote in the referendum whether or not they are so registered and for voting to be conducted by the Services in units and, in exceptional circumstances, in advance of the day appointed for the poll.
For what I understand are technical reasons, together with the amendments on Service voting we are taking a further group of amendments—Nos. 26, 29, 33, 35 and 37. It may be for the general convenience if I dispose of these straightaway.
The purpose of the second group of amendments is to substitute an Order in Council for an order made by the Secretary of State under Clause 1 of this Bill. The reason is that many Departments are involved given that the referendum concerns England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and that there will be—if the Committee agrees—special arrangements for Service voting. It therefore seemed preferable for the order giving effect to the detailed provisions

to be made in Council rather than by any one individual Minister.
Let me turn to the principal issue of substance. In the course of my remarks I shall refer particularly to Amendment No. 31. It is the key amendment. If it is agreed I doubt whether there will be much dispute about the other consequentials on Service voting.
In moving this amendment I should first explain why it is required and then how we have in mind its intention can be fulfilled. As a preliminary, however, I should say this. The Committee may wonder why the provisions of this amendment were not included in the Bill as printed. The explanation is simple. We were well aware of the special problem of the Service voter. We were conscious of it because of the problem of the Service voter in General Elections, which I shall come to in a moment; because of direct representations made to us by Service men; and not least because of the interest shown by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I recall, for example, the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) on 11th February at Question Time.
The obstacle was of finding a way round the problem which would not delay the referendum or create more anomalies than it removed or be inconsistent with the safeguards which, under the Representation of the People Acts, we regard as necessary. This was not easy. It was a race against time that we did not win before the Bill was printed. I am glad to say, and I hope the Committee will be glad, that we won it subsequently.
I now turn to why special measures are required for Service voters. All Service men and women—there are about 340,000 of them—are entitled to register as Service voters. In addition, so are their spouses when accompanying their husbands or their wives, as the case may be, overseas, and these number about 55,000. There are, therefore, some 400,000 persons, give or take a few, in this category—that is, Service personnel and their spouses when accompanying them overseas—who are entitled to register as Service voters.
The fact is, however—and this is the nub of the matter—that only some 25 per cent. of these are actually registered


on the current electoral roll. There are a number of reasons for this clearly unsatisfactory state of affairs. But I should like to emphasise—and this is what we are concerned with today—that, as the Bill now stands and in the absence of the amendments I am proposing, some 300,000 eligible Service voters would be unable to make known their wishes on their country's continued membership of the European Community.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Accepting that the referendum is a fairly unusual situation and that my party, the Scottish National Party, believes that these people should be encouraged to vote, does the Minister consider that the ordinary rules for parliamentary elections should be in any way relaxed, because they still put the onus on the Service man to make his own arrangements to make sure that his name appears on the register?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that the hon. Lady is being somewhat premature. If she finds that I have not dealt with that point during my remarks, certainly I shall be very glad to answer it later. The point she now makes is in my mind as it is clearly in hers.
Up to 1969—hon. Members will probably know this—Service personnel were required to register only once as Service voters, after which their names were included automatically in subsequent electoral registers, provided that they remained in all respects qualified so to register. There were, of course, disadvantages in this system, as in any system, but it did result overall in a majority of Service men and women, and, where appropriate, their spouses, being registered as Service voters—a majority but only a moderately small majority, if I may put it in that rather complicated way.
In 1969 the Speaker's Conference recommended changing to annual registration to bring Service practice into line with civilian, and in the hope, falsified by events, that the new system would boost the number registered. In fact, since 1969 the percentage of eligible Service voters registered on the electoral role has fallen dramatically, contrary to expectation, to a point at which, as I have said, only about one person in four would be able to vote in the forthcoming referendum. It was

because of this problem—the problem referred to by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing)—that the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law in 1973 recommended a return to the previous system of Forces' registration.
I can tell the hon. Lady and the Committee that the Government intend at an early opportunity to bring before the House of Commons appropriate legislation to give effect to this recommendation of the Speaker's Conference. However, meanwhile we are faced with a situation in which, as matters stand, some three-quarters of the Armed Services will not be able to vote in the referendum.
It is the Government's view, bearing in mind that an important factor of the Service man's failure to register is the conditions of Service life, which are largely beyond his control, that on this occasion Service personnel and their spouses should be permitted to vote on the basis of their eligibility to register as Service voters.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: There seems to be one category that has not been covered. Some of us were members of a Select Committee which visited Germany last week and talked to the Forces. It appears that under these proposals one category will be omitted. Has any thought been given to those dependants of Service people who are of voting age and are living with their spouses, husbands or wives, or their mothers and fathers in Germany, because it appears at present that they may not be enfranchised by the amendment? Will the Minister clarify that point?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Member will know that there is an amendment on the Notice Paper relating specifically to this point. Since it is in the group which you, Mr. Thomas, have specified for our current debate, I shall be referring to it in a moment. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that it is a special group. I will tell him what our view is about what ought to be done.
I turn to subsection (b) of the amendment, which seeks to make provision for advance voting and unit balloting. If the Committee agrees—and I hope it is right that I should seek to explain some of these details—that Service personnel and their spouses should qualify to vote


in the referendum on the basis of their eligibility as Service voters rather than on the basis of the current electoral register, it remains to be considered what special arrangements are necessary for the conduct of the Service poll.
Hon. Members will agree that at this late stage it would be unfair to require the substantial number of Service personnel overseas who have not already done so to make proxy arrangements for voting in the referendum. In any case, there is evidence that proxy voting, although necessary in General Elections for reasons of time, is becoming increasingly unpopular and it may be thought to be particularly inappropriate in the special and unpredictable circumstances of this referendum.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the likelihood is, as in the case of the 1945 General Election, that the 25 per cent. of Service men who are on the electoral register, and presumably have proxies, could, if they desired or by mistake, vote twice—once by proxy and once directly in their unit under this amendment? This happened in 1945. Can the Minister confirm that it could happen under these circumstances?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot confirm that, for reasons I shall explain in a moment which are encompassed by our amendments and our further proposals for voting. I cannot deny, and I am not doing so, that there are bound to be certain anomalies in any proposals of this kind. It is for the judgment of the Committee whether the anomalies outweigh the advantages, as we see them, of these amendments. What we are proposing is that Service personnel throughout the world and their spouses when overseas should be given the opportunity of voting locally at special polling stations within their units, the votes so cast being returned for counting to the United Kingdom.
This is a considerable undertaking. It is important to bear in mind, in considering the practicality of what we are proposing, that the Services are at a considerable advantage in that they are already sub-divided for the greater part into units of a suitable size for polling. For example, in Army barracks, RAF stations and Navy ships there is a com-

mand structure capable of speedily and effectively controlling the organisation of a vote of this kind. Similarly, the task of returning the votes to the United Kingdom for counting will be greatly facilitated by the Services' own movements organisation, especially the scheduled trooping flights of the RAF to and from the Far East.

Mr. Ian Gow: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has just said. If I understood him correctly he said that there were 400,000 members of the Armed Services and their spouses overseas. [Interruption.] Perhaps I have misunderstood. May I ask for clarification? Will the facilities to which he has referred extend to all members of the Armed Forces and their spouses whether they are serving within the United Kingdom or outside it?

Mr. Rodgers: The arrangements I am explaining will apply to all members of the Armed Forces wherever they are but to their spouses only when their spouses are abroad.

Mr. Gow: This illustrates the dilemma and seems to be one of the anomalies. Can the Minister tell the Committee why spouses will be able to vote under the arrangements he has set out only if those spouses are without the United Kingdom but not if they are within the United Kingdom. I assume from that that the spouses of those serving in Ulster will not, as I understand it, be able to avail themselves of this Service facility.

Mr. Rodgers: The answer is that the spouses of those serving within the United Kingdom will be able to vote in the normal way, with the rest of the electorate. Under our proposals, subject to any qualifications I may make, we expect that all Service men and their spouses wherever they are will be able to vote. But some will be voting under the special arrangements spelt out in our amendment and some will be voting in normal circumstances, living in the United Kingdom.
4.15 p.m.
Rather than my giving way on a number of occasions, it will be in the interests of the Committee if I make progress. I shall go through the other points, and if there are any remaining issues I will attempt to answer them in due course.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: May I ask a question on this point? I understand that there are, in the Minister's plans, 1,600 Service voting units at home and overseas at which balloting will take place. How many of the 1,600 are overseas? Can the Minister take us more into his confidence about the reasons why he feels it necessary for the ballot boxes to be returned to this country for counting?

Mr. Rodgers: I prefer not to give details about the first point. This figure of 1,600 may be a little smaller than that. It illustrates the difficulty of being precise. We have to think of units which make good practical sense from the point of view of voting, bearing in mind also the size of polling stations in this country. I would be glad to help the hon. Gentleman but I must not mislead him by implying that these matters are finally settled. The figure fluctuates. We believed it to be 1,600 a few days ago. We now think that it may be nearer 1,000.
If the Committee wants details of this kind today I am afraid that it may have to vote against the amendments because a lot of the detail is difficult to obtain. It depends on local information, and we must rely a great deal on the advice received from those on the spot.
To deal with the point about the ballot boxes, we take the view that it makes practical sense because we can get the ballot boxes back in time. That is also consistent with the view that if votes can be counted in this country they should be. Had it not been possible to get the boxes back in time a difficult situation might have arisen.
The existing sub-divisions in the Services, whether 1,000 or more, are for the greater part readily adaptable for voting purposes. There may be upwards of 1,000 of these units, and each would have its own presiding officer appointed to supervise the arrangements for and the conduct of the poll, including in the first place the drawing up of a nominal roll listing the names of all Service personnel and their spouses overseas serving within the catchment area of the voting unit.
I have been ready to admit that it is impossible to devise a system of voting that is 100 per cent. foolproof. I am satisfied that the arrangements we are making, coupled with the fact that the identity and circumstances of most Service

personnel are known to others within the same unit, will provide adequate safeguards against abuse.
The provision of facilities for unit voting would, with two exceptions, enable all those in the Armed Forces who are eligible to be included on the electoral register as Service voters to vote in the forthcoming referendum. The first exception is Service men who, by reason of their geographical location on polling day, would not have their votes returned to the United Kingdom in time for the count—in other words, they are the exception to the large number I mentioned in reply to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).
These people are a minority, but they could number 10 per cent., though we shall try to reduce this proportion. For the greater part, they are made up of sailors who will be at sea and out of range of shore on polling day, but they also include other personnel who, for operational reasons, may be unable to reach a Forces' voting unit. With the cancellation of existing proxy arrangements they would effectively be disfranchised unless they were given the opportunity of voting in advance of the date appointed for the referendum. For this reason, the amendment seeks to make provision for advance voting. The details of the way in which this will be effected are still being worked out.
I apologise to the Committee, but I must say again that the whole exercise is exceedingly complicated and I think that in some ways we have been bold to attempt it in the time. The details of the advance voting are still being worked out, but the likelihood is that any votes cast in advance will be sealed and deposited in ballot boxes under the charge of the unit presiding officers or, in the case of isolated individuals, returned by post direct to London.
The second exception to which I referred concerns Service men and women who, having registered as Service voters, have either recently left the Armed Forces or will do so between now and polling day. These people will not be able to vote in Service voting units, but they will still appear on the electoral register as Service voters. If in view of the provision for unit voting, the names of all Service voters in the Armed Forces were to be deleted from the electoral register,


these people would lose the right to vote in the referendum.
It is impossible to say how many are likely to be in this position, but a broad estimate is that there may be about 6,000 currently registered as Service voters who have left the forces. To prevent them from being disfranchised we propose to allow the existing register of Service voters to stand, in addition to the provision for unit voting. This will also enable Service men's wives, who have registered as Service voters and returned to this country since the compilation of the register, to cast their votes.
I should perhaps say something about the arrangements for the retrieval of the overseas Service vote within the timescale of the count.

Mr. Peter Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman say why he has seen fit to exclude a small number of people? Civilians attached to Service units overseas—not those at home—are in a similar situation, except that they are not in uniform, nor are they defined under the provisions of the amendment as people serving the Crown. Would it not be right and proper to include this small number of people? They meet all the criteria that the Minister is setting out. They are attached to units, they could work within units, and their votes could be recorded in the same way as those of serving personnel. Would it not be sensible—perhaps this has escaped the Minister's thinking—for this to be considered and these people to be allowed to vote?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman makes his point very fairly, but he is wrong in saying that they meet all the principles. One principle which they do not meet is that under the present electoral law they are not Service voters. Every person who is considered under the present legislation to be a Service voter is met by the scheme that I am proposing, but there are clearly some categories outside the Service voter, as defined, and one of these categories is referred to in another amendment on which I wish to comment briefly. But that is an important dividing line, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise its validity even if he may not agree that the fence is set up at the right place on this occasion.
I now propose to say something about the retrieval of the Service vote, because hon. Members may wonder how we can bring the ballot boxes home in time. We are helped—it is interesting to reflect upon this—by the fact that the greater part of our Service deployment overseas is east of the meridian of Greenwich, and therefore they will experience polling day rather sooner than we shall. It is strange that under these arrangements people will be voting elsewhere in the world while we shall still be asleep in our beds.
Voting overseas will generally be between 0700 and 2200 hours local time on 5th June if this still turns out to be the date but, given that many people are east of London, they will be polling ahead of our polling here, and this will enable us to bring all the votes cast to the counting point in the United Kingdom within 42 hours of the close of the poll. We are satisfied that the arrangements for Service voting will not delay the declaration of the result, which was an important factor when we were considering whether we could introduce these amendments.
I should add that despite all our efforts there will be a relative handful of men who will not be able to vote in the referendum, including some who are registered but who will effectively be disfranchised because proxies will be cancelled. I am satisfied that they will number a few hundred at most. We shall do our very best, but at the end of the day some will be left out.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Will my hon. Friend explain why proxies will be left out? The matter has been explained to me in general terms elsewhere, but I am not satisfied with the explanation. Can my hon. Friend be more specific?

Mr. Rodgers: The basis is that we shall not cancel the Service register because we do not want to disfranchise Service men and their wives who have come home from overseas service, but we propose to cancel all proxies, because, if we do not, there is a possibility of a serious anomaly arising whereby Service men will be able to vote in their units, and a large number will have a proxy at home.
It so happens that there is a small number—perhaps 300 or 400, we are not


certain—who will not be able to vote either on the day or in advance under these provisions. I cannot say how many of these have proxies, but if there are 400 in this category, and if the number of those registered is proportionate to the total registration, there are likely to be only about 100 people who will be disfranchised who would otherwise be able to vote under the present provisions of the law.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that because some people may break the law and attempt to vote twice, 100 people must be disfranchised altogether?

Mr. Rodgers: No, I am not saying that. I think the hon. Gentleman should have a greater sense of proportion. This is a difficult matter, and I think the Committee supports as many safeguards as possible to avoid duplication of voting, even by accident.
We could leave—and if the Committee wished it it would have to be so—all the proxies remaining, but this would mean that 100,000 people would have an easy opportunity to vote twice in the referendum. I do not for a moment suggest that they would, but the possibility would be there, and this possibility goes beyond anything which the House has previously considered in looking at the provisions for elections of any kind. Therefore, for the sake of maintaining that probity, less than 100 people, I think it will be, who may be on the register and have the right to a proxy will lose it. I am sorry about it, but this is where the balance should be struck.

Mr. Onslow: That is a remarkably small figure. If the proxies are cancelled, any Service man who is away from his unit on the day of voting and is not registered with some other unit will be unable to vote. I think that a considerable number of people, for instance, those attached to the Ministry of Defence, will be affected in this way. Does the hon. Gentleman stick to his figure of 100? I think that it is likely to be a considerable underestimate.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Rodgers: Yes, I stick to the figure. I cannot be absolutely certain; I say "about 0·1 per cent. of the whole". The

hon. Gentleman seems to be overlooking advance voting. We are saying that we think that 90 per cent. will vote in their units—I hope that the figure will be higher—and that 10 per cent.—I hope that the figure will be lower—will be eligible to vote in some other way. There remains a tiny residue who simply are not in contact for long enough at the right times in the right places, and whom we do not think we can reach I greatly hope that I am right. If I believed that it were not so, I should tell the Committee. We are trying to reduce this to a minimum. On the best estimate that we can make, it will be only a handful.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The Minister of State says that it will be only a handful. What about the considerable proportion of men who will be on leave when the referendum is held? Would it be possible for them, if they undertook not to use a proxy, to do it from their depots in this country?

Mr. Rodgers: No, I do not think that they could do it from their depots in this country, because it would need the sort of verification that we have in mind in their units. I do not think that the provisions for advance voting will fail to cover such an eventuality If, on further examination, I find that the figure is any greater, I shall bring it to the attention of the House of Commons, because I am concerned that we should reduce it to the very minimum. For the moment I have no other proposal which I could make which would reduce it beyond the figure I mentioned, nor any other method that I could adopt which would prevent it from rising were the circumstances such as some hon. Members believe.
I turn now to Amendment No. 31. I shall deal first with the two amendments standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), which would bring members of the reserve and auxiliary forces within the arrangements for Service voting. The important point—this bears on something I said in reply to the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery)—is that members of these forces are civilians and there is no reason to suppose that they will not have availed themselves of the opportunity to register in the normal way. They are not on a forces register. They register at home, like all of us. If they will be abroad on


reserve duty on the day of the referendum—we estimate that there may be 3,000 of them abroad on 5th June—they will be entitled to a proxy vote under Section 12 of the Representation of the People Act 1949, which makes specific provision for reservists.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: How will this be drawn to their attention?

Mr. Rodgers: This, again, is an example of how premature giving way on my part merely extends the length of the debate, because I was going to say, before the hon. Gentleman intervened, that I am sure that the amendment which has been tabled by the right hon. Gentleman, and this debate, will bring to the attention of reservists likely to be abroad the desirability of making proxy arrangements.
I am ready to consider whether there are any special steps we can take to the same end. If hon. Members will volunteer suggestions today—or, even better, after today—we shall do our best to take account of them. From our point of view it is right that all reservists who will be abroad on the day should recognise fully their entitlement under the 1949 legislation. I hope that in these circumstances those who put their names to this amendment will recognise that reservists are fully covered and will simply urge on me that the undertaking I have already given should be properly fulfilled.
This brings me to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Woking, which would include adult dependants overseas within the scope of our arrangement. I am instinctively sympathetic to this proposal, and we did not overlook the position of dependants, particularly children over the age of 18, when we drafted our amendment.
This comes back to what I said earlier in reply to a point made by the hon. Member for Honiton, that the basic difficulty is that dependants overseas have never been entitled to register as Service voters. This seems to me to be strange, but so be it; this is the way it has been.
So far as I am able to establish, even the recent Speaker's Conference did not hear any evidence on this point. It may be an odd by-product of our debate on

the Bill that the matter has now arisen. I intend to draw it to the attention of Mr. Speaker's Conference if it is reconvened, and I think it would be the wish of the House of Commons that Mr. Speaker's Conference should consider this rather curious and anomalous position where a distinction is made between dependent children and other dependants.
I should add that we estimate that the number of Service children overseas who are of voting age is fewer than 1,000. We have no figures for parents of Servicemen.
So, while taking the view that it is an anomaly which Mr. Speaker's Conference should consider following the practices and understandings of the House of Commons on changes in electoral law, I am not able to accept the amendment. I hope that, given my undertaking and given the fact that this raises an important new question of principle—this group is not within the definition of Service voters—the hon. Gentleman, having drawn our attention to the strength of feeling on the matter, will there let it rest.

Mr. Antony Buck: What the Minister of State said is historically extremely interesting, and no doubt the matter should have been dealt with in the past. Will he now give a real reason, other than an historical one, for not accepting the amendment as tabled? It may be that the amendment as tabled goes against precedent, but we believe that if the precedents are bad the amendment is good.

Mr. Rodgers: I did not think that I was arguing purely on grounds of history or precedent, but that we have some well understood practices that safeguard not only the House of Commons but our political system by which changes in electoral law are carefully considered by Mr. Speaker's Conference in advance. This is a principle which the House of Commons has ordinarily endorsed. Given that the numbers are small, I soberly suggest to the Committee that in these circumstances we should carefully reflect whether we should make a change of this kind.
These are complicated matters. There are some precedents for what we propose in the circumstances of 1945, but that was a long time ago and, as you, Mr. Thomas,


and other—but few other—Members will recall, the steps then taken delayed the declaration of the poll for 21 days.
I hope that these amendments will commend themselves to the Committee. They will not delay the declaration of the poll. I hope that the Committee will be sympathetic to some of the detailed problems which we must still try to solve within the broad umbrella of the amendments.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Opposition are naturally very pleased that the Lord President and the Minister of State have gone a very long way to meet the wishes of this side of the Committee about enfranchising Service voters. If we are to have a referendum, it obviously would have been intolerable that three quarters of those serving the country in the Armed Forces and their dependants would have been disfranchised.
We all agree that the 1969 Act was regrettable in this way, as in others. I am glad to hear from the Minister of State that the Government intend to introduce legislation shortly to give effect to the recommendations made in 1973 by Mr. Speaker's Conference.
What the Minister of State said about the arrangements, though complicated, certainly seemed sensible, and I do not wish to question them much at this stage. He said that all the Service votes will be back within 42 hours of the closing of the poll. Will that be time enough? Is he not presupposing that the House will agree to a national count? If the House does not agree to a national count and we have either a county count—if I can use that expression—or a constituency count, surely 42 hours will make it a bit late. At some stage we should like clarification on that. It may be that somehow the arrangements will have to be speeded up.
The Minister of State was right when he said that some of my hon. Friends—especially my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow)—will want to press him a little further on their amendments. We shall wait to hear what they have to say and what he has to say in reply.
At present I should like to welcome the amendments so far as they go, and the accommodating spirit which the Minister of State has shown.

Mr. Onslow: Far be it from me to do anything other than praise the Minister of State for taking this major step forward in the enfranchisement of the Service electors. The Committee knows that it is largely to his credit that we are considering these amendments today. Without doing anything to provoke the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, I believe it is fair to say that he is only marginally interested in this matter. I do not suppose that we shall hear a great deal from him. The initiative has come from the Minister of State for Defence, and it is quite appropriate that he should have propounded the Government amendments at some length.
Whilst the arguments introduced by the hon. Gentleman are still fresh in our minds, I should like to ask him one or two questions, bearing in mind that he told us that it was as a result of representations from the Services and both sides of the House that these amendments have been brought into the Bill. I hope that we can draw encouragement and press still further—in the light of representations which are still coming in from the Services, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has reminded us and which will come in, I have no doubt, from many of my hon. Friends—that the changes still do not go quite far enough.
It is in any case quite clear that the Government's plans are still in some flux. For example, I quoted the letter which the hon. Gentleman wrote to me three days ago. He was thinking then in terms of 1,600 voting units; now there are to be slightly over 1,000. There seems to be a considerable area of indecision and imprecision here, and it may be that if that exists we can take advantage of it to make some other changes as well.
I am not clear about what precisely is the position of some of the categories of Service men. For instance, that Minister may find some difficulty in telling us what is the position of men in detention centres. What, in particular, is the position of the wife in BAOR of a man who has been returned to this country to serve his time in a detention centre in the


United Kingdom? I dare say that the Official Box will be kept quite busy working that one out, but perhaps it illustrates how complex it becomes when we come to consider all the realities of Service life. A more serious point concerns the position of a man who has left the Forces, and the wife of a man who has left the Forces. Are they enfranchised only if they were registered as Service voters before leaving the Forces? If that is so, how does the distinction stand up as between men who left from service overseas and men who left from service in this country?
This may seem a niggling point, but I have a strong suspicion that decisions of this sort will need to be taken, because voters will come forward to claim votes and the authorities, whether they be the ordinary electoral authorities or the Service authorities, will need to be advised. It may be that the advice will have to go out as far as the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, and to SSAFA and other organisations to which Service men and women, and ex-Service men and women, turn when they are in doubt.
I have considerable sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) in so far as it applies, for example, to NAAFI girls overseas. Are they to be disfranchised? Are education staff in Germany, who I think are classed as civilians and engaged as such, to be allowed to vote on the Service register or are they to be treated as civilians and told for one reason or another that they are disqualified? I make the point not because I have fault to find with the amendment iself, but because I feel that there is need for the situation to be as clear as possible for the enormous variety of contingencies which individual would-be voters will find themselves faced with.
4.45 p.m.
I must also press the hon. Gentleman on one other point in particular; namely, the number who are likely to be disfranchised because of the cancellation of all proxies. If that number will be only 100 on polling day—whenever that may be—I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has counted the number who will be on leave, on exercise, on courses, in hospital, seconded from their own unit to some other unit, or away on duty. I am thinking of RAF air crews who are flying at a

station other than their own. They are still serving and carrying out their duty. Because all proxies are cancelled, are those people to be denied any opportunity to vote, and are there really going to be only 100 of them?

Mr. Robert Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree with the hon. Gentleman, nevertheless, that it is impossible to make this arrangement perfect and that there are always going to be anomalies? Does he agree that the summation of the points made by the hon. Gentleman might be—I do not want to be unfair—that if there are only a few hundred anomalies it is too bad, but if there are thousands or hundreds of thousands we must try to do something about it? Is that a fair summing up?

Mr. Onslow: I hesitate to adjudicate on that point. I put it to the Minister that he should make his decision in the light of the facts as he sees them. If he puts it forward as a fact that only 100 will be away on the day, I suggest that that is not something on which he should rely to the extent to which he has so far been prepared to do so.
I turn now to the amendment to Government Amendment No. 31 in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who will probably also seek to catch your eye, Mr. Thomas:
after 'spouses' insert
'and any adult dependent having a right of abode in the United Kingdom as defined in the Immigration Act 1971'.
Having once served on a Speaker's Conference, I was interested in the arguments which the hon. Gentleman put forward, but I cannot say I was convinced by them. I do not know whether he has served on a Speaker's Conference.

Mr. William Rodgers: indicated dissent.

Mr. Onslow: I am sorry to see that the hon. Gentleman has been denied that experience. If he had served on one of the Speaker's Conferences he might be taking a different view of the matter. The fact is that Speaker's Conferences exist mainly to provide the Government with excuses for doing what they want to do. When a conference recommends something the Government do not want


to do, it might as well not have existed at all.
I was on the Speaker's Conference which considered whether the voting age should be lowered. That conference recommended by a substantial majority that it should be lowered to 20. The Government did not take a blind bit of notice. We might as well have saved ourselves the time and effort, and gone off to watch a cricket match, instead of spending a long time, under Mr. Speaker's painstaking chairmanship, discussing arguments, producing a report and finally expecting the House to take it seriously. Watching cricket would have been much more interesting and worth while, for the Government of the day did not feel that they should accept our recommendation that the voting age should be lowered to 20. They thought that it should be lowered to 18, and, of course, that is what happened.
The holy writ, the tablets of stone from the Speaker's Conference are very often treated as though they are a matter of no account. Fair enough. The House is entitled to do that. It is not bound by Speaker's Conferences. But, by the same token, Ministers should not say that because the Speaker's Conference has never pronounced on a matter the House may not consider it, although it is free to take a view once the matter has been through that part of the mill.
Therefore, I do not find it a compelling argument that the Speaker's Conference has not recommended on the matter. I suspect that in this instance the only reason why it has not made a recommendation is that it has never thought of it. The evidence that comes before the Speaker's Conference is not always of the most perfect kind. Sometimes, on a hot, sunny afternoon, the members do not devote all the attention that they should to the arguments, and do not question the witnesses with the pertinacity and penetration that we should like. Sometimes, they nod off a bit. Hon. Members who have served on Sneaker's Conferences can bear me out. From my imperfect recollection of my own experience, I am not sure that everybody always heard everything that was said, or paid total attention to all of it.
I suspect that the Speaker's Conference which considered the matter of the

Service voter and his wife never thought that there were further considerations, such as the 18-year-old son and daughter, or even the mother-in-law, or the widowed Service man who happens to have his sister or a housekeeper to look after his family. The fact that the Speaker's Conference never thought about it is no reason for the Committee not to make good the deficiency by enfranchising those who would otherwise be denied a vote in the referendum.
That may be a daring and naughty thought to put before the Committee, but we are told that the referendum is a unique event. The Minister reminded us that the circumstances were special. I think that someone has even said that no precedents are being created, which is always a dangerous thing to say. But if we are to take that kind of statement at face value, I am not sure that a dangerous precedent would be created if we did the sensible thing and went just that millimetre further than the Speaker's Conference has recommended and enfranchised a thousand adult children, perhaps 75 mothers-in-law and 123 housekeepers.

Mr. Goodhart: Five thousand mothers-in-law.

Mr. Onslow: Let us enfranchise all the mothers-in-law who come within the ambit of the amendment. I have no objection at all to mothers-in-law.
In any case, I must tell the Minister that his arguments are not quite so strong as he may have thought for this further reason. I do not recall that the august, all-powerful, all-seeing, all-wise Speaker's Conference has ever devoted much thought to the question of holding a referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, who knows all about these things, does not remember—

Mr. Michael English: What about the conference held under the presidency of Mr. Speaker to discuss what could take the place of the House of Lords, which considered whether referenda could?

Mr. Onslow: What an interesting question! My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham will be ready to deal with it, because it is right up this street. I see him relishing the prospect of straightening the hon. Gentleman out on this important subject. But that is a minimal


contribution to the debate in which we are engaged, which is about whether a number of people who would not otherwise be allowed to vote should be enfranchised in the way proposed by my amendment.
From time to time, the House discusses what it is pleased to call the representation of the people. It does it in the most schoolmarmish way that it is possible to conceive in the 1970s. When hon. Members, particularly Ministers briefed by the Home Office, turn their attention to the representation of the people, which means your vote and mine, Mr. Thomas, to put it in slightly less pompous terms, there is the underlying presumption throughout that you should not be allowed to have a vote because you will do something naughty with it. I do not subscribe to that view. It is the right of every citizen to have a vote, and it is a matter of the gravest moment for any Minister to say to an elector "You may not exercise your right as a citizen", for this, that or the other reason. We are often, perhaps subconsciously, more ready to deny the vote than to extend it.
I see no good reason why any Minister should deny the vote to the people covered by my amendment or to the many other people who are at present disfranchised because they are not registered, or perhaps because they will be on holiday. They are still citizens. They pay their taxes, they owe their loyalty to this country, and they expect the right to vote in return for their consent, however reluctant, to be governed. I hope that when the argument is finished, my hon. Friends and perhaps some others will be prepared to support that proposition in the Lobby.

Mr. English: I had thought that these amendments were tabled as a concession to those who wanted votes for holiday makers, residents overseas and so on. It now appears from the fact that we have the two subsequent groups of amendments that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did not table the amendments as part of a deal but that they were merely a concession—I do not know to whom. Perhaps they are a concession to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence.
This is the first of what I consider to be several examples of undoubted attempts to bias the referendum. I do not think that anyone will vote against this group of Government amendments, but it is illuminating that the very first amendment in Committee was moved by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence, who, I believe, is the only Minister to have appeared on a "Midweek" television programme as a member of the Britain in Europe or the European Movement Committee before the Ministerial guidelines were published and Ministers were allowed to express their views—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows well enough that he should be speaking on the question of the Forces' vote.

Mr. English: That is the example I wish to choose. The statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the White Paper made it clear that the electoral law used for the referendum would be the normal electoral law. There are occasions when we need to change electoral law, but it is much better to change electoral law when it is necessary to change it, not for the purpose of a particular election or a particular vote, in this case on a referendum.

Mr. Michael Latham: How can the hon. Gentleman sustain that argument when we have been told umpteen times from the Government Front Bench that the referendum is intended to be a unique exercise?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. English: I can easily sustain it. A referendum and an election are both consultations with the voters. The uniqueness of the referendum lies in that it is a consultation with the voter on a particular question other than which party should govern the State, which is what an election is about. Its uniqueness in that respect does not mean that the Government should change the people who can vote. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said he believed in every citizen of the United Kingdom, wherever he was, having a vote, but he has not expressed that point of view frequently in relation to General Elections.

Sir Anthony Royle: Surely, the hon. Gentleman has missed the main point. A General Election is not just to elect a Government. It is a matter of 635 constituencies electing 635 Members of Parliament. Each constituency elects an individual who will represent the electorate of that constituency here at Westminster. The referendum is totally different. It is a new method, totally anti-constitutional, whereby the nation as a whole will vote "Yes" or "No", not for an individual.

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman destroys his case by saying that the referendum is totally anti-constitutional. The Government who have introduced the Bill and the amendment do not think it anti-constitutional, any more than I do.

Mr. Onslow: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that his reference to my inconsistency, as he sees it, tends to bear out my impression that in debates on these matters he listens only to his own speeches and not to those made by other hon. Members. If he will take the trouble to visit the Library when he has finished his contribution and read the contribution I made on 10th May, in which I advocated the extension of the franchise to the half-million voters who were disfranchised by his Government in October last year, he might withdraw the charge which he has levelled against me.

Mr. English: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not recollect that he has raised these matters in debates on the representation of the people, which is the point I am making.

Mr. Onslow: My speech was on the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill.

Mr. English: The whole plethora of interventions made in the speech of my hon. Friend, the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) and what has been said so far by Opposition Members on the points of detail in relation to Service men illustrate just how bad it is to attempt to change electoral law quickly without taking the normal relatively slow processes of considering all the details involved, their implications, anomalies and so on.
The hon. Member for Woking said that Speaker's Conferences were not of

much use. That may or may not be so, but what is certain is that we take a considerable length of time to consider any change in electoral law. We consult all returning officers, they send reports to the Home Office, the Home Office presents evidence to the Speaker's Conference, and a Bill is prepared which goes through all its stages in both Houses at a fairly slow pace, rather than at the fairly rapid pace with which it is hoped this Bill will go through so that the referendum may be held. It would have been much better to keep the electoral law for the purpose of deciding which voters shall vote when we are trying to get the Bill through quickly.

Sir Raymond Gower: After all that my hon. Friends have put to the hon. Gentleman, cannot he see any distinction between the exercise that is now being carried out and a normal election? Will he not accept that the referendum is analogous to the broad question that is put in an American presidential election? In United States' elections ample provision is made in every overseas consulate for all United States' citizens to vote. In an exercise of this kind, cannot we make extraordinary arrangements to ensure that all British citizens will have the opportunity to vote, although that is not done in General Elections? Cannot the hon. Gentleman see any distinction?

Mr. English: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the example he gives. A resident of my constituency once sought to obtain a vote, she being an American citizen. What the hon. Gentleman forgets is that electoral law in the United States Is not one law but 50 laws. Even in the presidential election there are 50 laws—or 51, because the District of Columbia is separate—according to which most people cannot vote in this sort of circumstance. The hon. Gentleman chose a bad analogy.
It is important to consider some of the details. For example, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked how—if we do not have a national count—we attribute the votes to particular constituencies.
We cannot ignore the repercussions of this upon electoral law. When Opposition Members promote the vote for holiday makers, as they have promoted it in electoral law, they will not wish to ignore


the repercussions for electoral purposes. They will not then be saying that the referendum is unique. They will be saying that if it can be done for Service men overseas or holiday makers for the referendum it can be done for a normal election. They would use completely opposite arguments to those they are using today.
How do we attribute those Service men to their constituencies? We have all had experience of meeting Service men who think that they are in one's constituency whereas they do not even live in the same county, never mind in the same constituency. We know of people who have been in the Forces for a long time who do not know anything about their Member of Parliament or whether or not he is any good. Service men are not encouraged—rightly, no doubt—to talk politics. How are they to be informed in this case or in any other? Is there to be in normal elections a free post to every person on the register? Is some central body in Britain to be provided with the register of Service men so that they may be written to if either side wishes to write to them?
In election times, or indeed now, are we to have free travel for canvassers to go to Germany to canvass and talk to the Service men? How are they to be informed? Presumably—although this has not been said—they will receive the case for "Yes" and the case for "No", and, in addition, they will get the Government's case, with which, as representatives of the Services, they will presumably be inclined to agree, though the so-called Government's case is actually that of only 16 members of the Cabinet.

Mr. Michael Latham: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument but I have some difficulty. He will recall that both on Second Reading of the Bill and this afternoon Ministers have indicated that about 300,000 Service men have not registered. That is what the Lord President said on 10th April, and it is reported in column 1422. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that they should be disfranchised for the purposes of the referendum?

Mr. English: When a person has an opportunity to register and does not do so, it is his fault. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 300,000 Service men, but does

he know the estimate of the number of civilians in this country who are missed off the electoral register because they have not sent in the form, because someone else sent the form off and did not include their name, or simply because of clerical errors in the offices of returning officers? The estimate is 1,500 per constituency. Having taken a case in the High Court the day before the last election to get some of my electors put on the register, I do not think that that is an underestimate. There are certainly more people missed off the register in this country than these 300,000. The 1969 Act may have changed the system and may have had a bad effect, but the point that I am making is that those Service men had the opportunities given to them by the existing law but fewer and fewer of them have availed themselves of those opportunities.
We are now changing the existing electoral law. If we changed it tonight—and I have no doubt that the amendment will be carried—it is bound to be the case that some Conservative Members will say "If you could do it for a referendum you can do it for a General Election."[HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right."] I am glad that the argument has finally penetrated the minds of some Conservative Members. If that is the case, we are in a genuine difficulty, because how do candidates in General Elections, along with proponents of the two sides in this case, put over their point of view?
There is a great distinction between people overseas and people at home. Even if we send two little pamphlets to people overseas they will not see the television programmes. It may be that they will be able to hear overseas radio broadcasts, but will there be provision of videotapes of television programmes and will they be shown to those concerned? I am thinking of videotapes putting forward both sides of the argument.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman is revealing all the "schoolmarmish" sentiments which I warned the Committee against. He is saying, in effect, that no one will be considered as qualified to express an opinion unless he has heard the candidate, read all the papers and listened to many broadcasts. There are many people who do not want to be confused by a lot of stupid things which we as candidates feel necessary. There are many people who just want to vote.


The hon. Gentleman's argument will carry no more weight with them than it does with me.

Mr. English: I would have thought that the education of the electorate is the reason for my party being in power and not the hon. Gentleman's party. In the days before the 1870 Education Act the hon. Gentleman's party or another one was almost continually in power.

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) made an interjection about General Elections with which I personally do not agree, but will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has taken on board the point that people overseas and Service men serving overseas, whilst they could vote and their votes could be counted in a referendum, could not possibly use the same voting machinery for a General Election? Would the hon. Gentleman say that the 100,000 Service votes should be divided by 635 and scattered around each constituency—

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) will not be drawn. We are discussing not a General Election but whether the Forces shall vote in the referendum. That is the question before us, and I hope that hon. Members will keep to it.

Mr. English: I accept your ruling, Mr. Thomas. I think that I have made my point. The point at issue is that we are making an exception to general electoral law. In my view that is a bad thing. By doing so we are giving votes to people overseas who have been cut off from sources of information about the subject in question. I realise that no one will vote against the amendment, but I deprecate the precedent of extending the right to vote far overseas where people are influenced by other media and forms of communication other than those of the country whose future they will be voting upon.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I draw the attention of the Committee to two or three matters, and in doing so I bear in mind that there are many hon. Members who happen to believe that a referendum at any time is complete and utter nonsense in terms of the British constitution. There

were many of us who were unable to speak on Second Reading and I think it will become quite apparent during the many amendments which will be discussed that we shall wish to develop our objections to referenda.
The Lord Chancellor in 1911 said:
The referendum would also be fatal to representative government. The political genius of the English people was the first to discover, and after great difficulty to develop, the real basis of liberty and of self-government in this country—a system which has been copied all over the world.

Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. Some of us are trying very hard, against our better nature, to listen to the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). If three of the hon. Gentleman's chums who are sitting behind him do not shut up we shall not be able to hear what he says.

The Chairman: We all want to hear each other. There are some whom we want to hear more than others.

Mr. Emery: I am delighted to have that ruling, and I assure you, Mr. Thomas, that my hon. Friends will be delighted to hear many speeches by Labour Members in developing certain points.
I shall now finish the quotation. The Lord Chancellor said:
Every referendum is an attack on the representative system.
I accept immediately that the amendment is an improvement, but I do not believe that it in any way alters the general view that many of us have—namely, that the whole matter is nonsense and has been engineered merely to get the Labour Party out of a rather difficult internal situation.

The Chairman: We are discussing not the general issue of whether there shall be a referendum but whether the Forces are to vote.

Mr. Emery: With your great knowledge you will realise, Mr. Thomas, that the position of the Forces must be an intimate part of the totality of the vote. It is that argument which I am developing and which I will—

The Chairman: Let us try to keep within the terms of the amendment and not broaden the debate to include the whole question of the referendum.

Mr. Emery: I would never think of trying to broaden the debate, Mr. Thomas. I was merely laying the foundations for the argument which I wish to propound about the voting of the military.
It seems right that every person who can be brought to the polls, if there should be a referendum, should be encouraged to take part. The major difficulty that the Government will face is if the vote is a low poll—for example, let us say there was a turnout of only 48 per cent. and we were to find that 24½ per cent. were in favour of coming out and 23½ per cent. in favour of staying in and 52 per cent. of the electorate had not spoken. The Government would then be in a difficult and embarrassing situation. Therefore, we should take steps to encourage more people to vote.
I congratulate the Minister of State on introducing this amendment. I am certain that it will not have been popular with all his colleagues in Government. It must be evident that it is highly unsatisfactory for the Minister of State to come to the Dispatch Box—I praise him for admitting this quite openly—and say that the Government do not have all the details about the number of proxies that will he struck off. They do not have exact details as to the number of units. Some of us were led to believe two weeks ago that the figure was 1,600, but the Minister has now spoken of about 1,000. He could not give us the exact details. He implied that it was a complicated and difficult matter, but the Committee has the right to expect that when a Government come forward with a major constitutional issue they have thought the thing out thoroughly and completely. I have to say that that was not apparent from some of the hanging ends of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I say so in the nicest possible way.
I wish to deal with the situation of civilians who are attached to Service units overseas. The Minister of State said that civilians were ruled out of the provisions because of the definition in the amendment that persons concerned were not members of the Forces. That is a judgment which obviously has been taken by the Government, but it would be feasible in the amendment to make it possible for civilians serving overseas and attached to military units to be considered

in the same category as members of the Armed Forces defined in the amendment. There would surely be no difficulty in adding that provision. Male and female civilian personnel attached to overseas units are under the command of the unit commander, they are frequently paid by the unit and they are under unit discipline. Therefore, in all senses they are an integral part of that overseas unit.
In recent years we have seen an increase in civilian personnel in overseas posts either to back up the uniformed personnel or to replace them. Although I agree that those personnel are in a small category, they should surely have the right to be considered in exactly the same way as are personnel in uniform. The line taken in Ministry of Defence advertising is often to the effect "You will be doing a job shoulder to shoulder with the military man, but as a civilian you are backing up the work of the unit."

Mr. George Cunningham: Since in common sense terms those people are employees of the Crown, would they not normally be entitled to vote in the same way as diplomats serving abroad would be able to vote?

Mr. Emery: That is a sensible suggestion, but nothing of the sort was implied in the Minister of State's speech this afternoon. Perhaps it would help if the people to whom I refer were put in the same category as diplomats serving overseas. The point I am making is that I believe they should not have been excluded.
I should like to turn to consider the exclusion of people on the proxy register. What will be the position of a person not serving overseas who finds that he is not able to vote with his unit, but turns up at the address at which his proxy is registered and asks to vote in person at the polling booth? I realise that normally the man must go through the proxy procedure.

Mr. George Cunningham: No, he does not.

Mr. Emery: In the normal way he would have to go through that procedure. I suggest that, if necessary, he should be allowed to turn up and vote in person. That will deal with another small section of those in the category which I am considering.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Is it not a fact that somebody who has a proxy and turns up to vote in person will not be allowed to vote because he has that proxy? However, if the proxy is cancelled, such a person will be allowed to turn up and vote.

Mr. Emery: My hon. and learned Friend states the position as I see it, but, again, that situation was not dealt with by the Minister of State. I should like the matter to be made clear. In other words, if the proxy list is done away with, will the Service man originally appearing on such a list be able to vote?

Mr. Michael Latham: Does this not also cover the question of the Service man who is at home on leave and, therefore, cannot vote in his unit overseas?

Mr. Emery: My hon. Friend has taken my third point—namely, the situation of members of the Armed Forces who are on leave or on courses. Surely at any one time between 5 and 10 per cent. of Service personnel are on leave. Therefore, if they are not in their units, how does the Minister suggest they will have the opportunity to vote? They may not be on the electoral register of the area in which they are spending their leave. Is there not some way to deal with people on leave in view of the advanced voting procedures envisaged in this new step to be taken by the Government? Anybody going on leave should be able to cast his vote in secret, the vote would be held by the unit commander until all the votes are put together, and would then be sent forward for counting. I appreciate that this would involve an extra amount of work, but it is surely not such a great task when one considers voting on a matter of such importance as the referendum.
There is a great deal of difference in the situation facing a member of the Armed Forces on leave and that facing an ordinary civilian on holiday. It has been suggested that Service men are in the same situation as the holiday maker who has not the right to vote if he is away on holiday during the ballot. However, in many cases Service men have to take their leave periods at the end of courses, between postings or at the end of service in a particular unit. Therefore, the time at which they take that leave is not in their own hands but is

dictated by the exigencies of the Service. Therefore, there is a distinct difference between the ordinary civilian on holiday and a member of the Armed Forces on leave. The Government should seek to provide a specific method for people on leave to be able to vote in the referendum.
I believe that the amendment embodies a number of new difficulties. It is important that the Government should be able to provide proper and reasonable answers on these points. This does not mean that at this stage we should vote against the amendment, because it advances along a road which many of us see as necessary, if there is to be a referendum. However, that does not mean to say that in the present situation the amendment is entirely acceptable. I think the Committee will be satisfied on these matters only if hon. Members are given proper answers to their questions.

[Mr. W. T. WILLIAMS in the Chair]

5.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I am grateful to the Minister of State for the Government amendment. The Committee should also be grateful to him for the general tenor of his speech and the reception which he gave to the amendments to the amendment.
I think that as many people as possible should vote in the elections and in the referendum. I am wholly unmoved by the extraordinary reasons advanced such as that some people do not have the benefit of television or that they have not registered in the way laid down by Mr. Speaker's Conference. The voters have a basic right to vote. The Committee should find ways in which the voters can vote and not find ways in which they cannot vote.
We are apt to display the well-known schoolmasterly attitude that we must at all costs stop people cheating. That attitude makes the tax system of the United Kingdom so complicated. It is thought that 1 million people must be put to enormous inconvenience to stop three people cheating.
Voting in my constituency is not easy. There was a time when the candidates had to charter a ship to convey the voters from North Ronaldsay to Sanday. Some of the voters were usually drunk before they arrived at the polling station. Per-


haps the whole procedure was illegal. They were the whalers in the Antarctic. There was competition from the elements. Sometimes the Island of Foula was cut off for two or three months and the General Election had passed by before the people of Foula had a chance to take part in it.
The difficulty at General Elections is the short time. There are only 10 days until nomination day, and then 10 days until polling day. That is what makes the matter difficult.
The Minister said that even the referendum was a difficult problem and that the Government had not had much time in which to consider it. However, nearly six months have elapsed since the General Election when the Government conceived this device of getting themselves out of this muddle. It is possible for the people to vote on this matter at any moment. There will be no nominations. Neither will there be a dissolution of Parliament. I hope, therefore, that the Government will look again at the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).
It is nonsense to say that we can alter the electoral law only after a Speaker's Conference. The House is master of its own procedures. If it can produce a referendum, surely it can produce the means of carrying it out.
I am not much moved by the arguments about holiday makers. I have always thought that holiday makers should vote. Since it is only the rich who go on holiday at 10 minutes' notice, others have booked holidays long before the election is announced. Therefore, I hope that the old arguments about holiday makers voting will not be applied to this amendment.
It is true that Service personnel are scattered to many places, sometimes on leave, on detachment, on ships, and so on. I think that the Minister of State was sympathetic to that point. I should have thought that things could be arranged so that Service people who were away could vote. Bearing in mind that the time scale of a referendum is different from that of a General Election and that voting can take place at any time within reason, I should have thought that something to cover these categories could be arranged.
The trouble with devices to prevent people from cheating is that they do not

stop people wanting to cheat. People can always cheat if they are determined. Such devices end up by stopping the votes of the innocent people who are not trying to cheat. I believe that it is possible to device a way whereby people who are detached from their units or those attached to their units can vote. I was not clear about Service spouses. Will they have to return to their place of registration to vote? If that is the case, that will put them to some inconvenience, not to say expense. Will the ordinary arrangements for Service men's wives to vote apply in this case? Why should they not be treated as their husbands are to be treated.
I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us about the proces of voting. Will it be carried out in one day, and if so, why? Postal voting cannot take place in one day. What will be the arrangements for Service personnel to cast their votes? He must allow as many people as possible to vote even though that may be contrary to the nonexistent advice of a Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Ian Percival: I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee to speak on the need for amendments (b) and (c) to Government Amendment No. 31 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) and myself. Amendment (b) is to leave out '(as defined in section 46 of the Representation of the People Act 1949)'. Amendment (c) is to add at the end—
'For the purposes of this subsection the expression "member of the forces" means a person serving as a member of any of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown, whether on full pay or otherwise, and includes a person serving only as a member of a reserve or auxiliary force: and the above references to the naval, military or air forces of the Crown shall include any women's force administered by the Admiralty, Army Council or Air Council '.
We are dealing with enabling powers. The Minister of State gave a detailed account of how it is proposed to use those powers. That was helpful. However, we are not discussing that. Whether or not the powers will be exercised in a special way will be discussed and decided when draft orders are laid before Parliament for affirmative resolutions under Clause 1(5).
Our purpose must be to ensure that sufficiently wide powers are available to enable the Government and the House by Order in Council to ensure that people wo should be able to vote are enabled to do so on an issue which is of vital importance to the future of the country. Recognising that purpose, we should make the enabling powers as wide as possible and make sure that we do not confine ourselves in our future activities by not having made the enabling powers wide enough.
The Government, prompted by the Opposition and other quarters, have shown great concern for the position of the Regular Service men and women. That is right and proper. Though the Opposition will comment on the detail of how the Government have done that, we agree and applaud their intentions in desiring to make adequate provision for Service men and women. However, we do not think that the Government have shown sufficient concern for the auxiliaries and volunteers. Nobody has a better right to vote than the men and women who are members of the auxiliary and volunteer forces, who give their time and energy to preparing themselves and others to defend their country should the need arise. It would be insufferable if any of them were deprived of their vote because of our failure to ensure that they can exercise that right. The Government must go out of their way to ensure that.
The amendment was prompted by the knowledge that the council of the TAVR associations was concerned about the position on 5th June. They estimate that more than 2,000 members of those associations will have been serving with the Regulars on 5th April. I do not know whether the Minister's figure of 3,000 is confined to the TAVR or includes other auxiliaries. However, it is clear that we are referring not just to a few people. Those people are aware of their right to proxy votes. However, I can anticipate their feelings regarding what the Minister said about their position. I do not think that what he said will give those people much satisfaction. The Minister said that they were civilians. So they are. So what? On the day in question they will be serving as soldiers, sailors or airmen. They will be subject to the difficulties experienced

by all the other soldiers, sailors and airmen serving in the same place. It is an irrelevant distinction to this argument. It is ungenerous to suggest that the right to a proxy vote should suffice. Surely we can do better than that.
The Minister said that there was growing evidence that proxy voting was becoming increasingly unpopular. There are problems about people getting registered. It is not unreasonable to suggest that if the matter is left as it is, quite a few of those 3,000 people who were mentioned will not get a proxy vote. I suggest that it is not very generous of the Minister to say what he said and to leave it there. We ought to be able to do better than that.
We are to put special provisions at the disposal of Regular Service men. That is very right and proper. We are to allow them to vote at special unit polling stations. I see no reason why the gentlemen of the TAVR or the ladies of the women's Services who will be serving with units at the time of the referendum should not participate in those special arrangements as well.
We have heard about the arrangements which are already proposed for serving personnel. We agree with and applaud them. However, we hope that they will be improved more as a result of the debate. I am sure that it is obvious that our intention is to improve what is already proposed, rather than to destroy.
I should like the Minister of State to address his mind to certain questions when further considering the amendments. Why limit those special provisions to members of the Services as defined in Amendment No. 31? Why not widen the position so that, if we see any other way of assisting these people by making available the provisions which we are to make for the rest of the Services, we at least have the power to do so? Why close the door on that opportunity?
We are limiting the scope of these enabling powers by adopting the definition of members of the Services which is set out in Section 46 of the Representation of the People Act 1948. That definition is limited to members serving on full pay, and it expressly excludes auxiliaries and volunteers. There is no necessity to hang that definition around our necks here. There is no reason why we should


not permit ourselves a wider definition which leaves scope within which we can do whatever may occur to us as possible, practical and useful in the remaining days before the referendum.
That is what Amendments (b) and (c) would do. Amendment (b) takes out the existing definition, which is extremely limited, and Amendment (c) substitutes for that narrow definition a much wider one. I accept that that definition is probably wider than would ever prove necessary. It may be unnecessary ever to use it. But if the Government were to persist in rejecting that amendment, which is advanced for that purpose and has only that effect, and were then to discover new unforeseen difficulties or new ways of meeting the difficulties which they now say they recognise but cannot meet, and were to find themselves unable to take advantage of them because of the limits of the enabling powers, it would be too late for them to deal with those situations.
We submit that if just one auxiliary or volunteer Service man or woman were to be deprived of his or her vote because the Government had refused to accept the amendment and this Committee had rejected it, that would be a terrible indictment of both the Government and this Committee.
I hope, therefore, that by the time we reach Amendments (b) and (c) to Amendment No. 31 and the Committee has to make a decision on them, the Government will either have changed their mind and will accept them or that there will be sufficient right hon. and hon. Members who care sufficiently about these auxiliaries and volunteers to carry these amendments against the Government.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. James Lamond: Listening to the discussion on the amendment which seeks to change the method of voting for people serving in the Forces, one would imagine that there was no procedure which enabled anyone interested and serving in the Forces to have his or her name put on the electoral register. In fact, as we know, there is a method by which Service men and women may have their names put on the proxy list, and many have taken advantage of it.
But we have been told by the Minister that apparently 300,000 men and women

serving in the Forces are not on the proxy list. There may be many reasons why they are not on that list. It may be difficult to get on to it. However, I suggest that one substantial reason is the lack of interest in politics which members of the Forces who have not bothered to register must have. If they were interested enough to wish to vote at General Elections, their names would appear on the proxy list. I fail to see why we should make a special amendment on this occasion to draw into the total numbers permitted to vote those who have not been interested to come forward and register.

Mr. Emery: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a number of people who have no interest in the party political battle would, when it came to the very future of this country in Europe on this major constitutional issue, believe that that transcended politics and that they ought to vote?

Mr. Lamond: It is interesting to ear the hon. Gentleman put forward that theory. I thought that the argument from the other side was that the decision about Europe should be made by elected Members of Parliament, not by a referendum. If the decision were made by Members of Parliament, those serving in the Armed Forces for whom there is such concern at the moment would have no say in the future of this country. If we followed the line proposed by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends, members of the Armed Forces would certainly be denied any opportunity of registering their opinions about this country's future.
I am not happy about the amendment, because we have been told that, in order to include in the electoral roll those who have thus far been so uninterested that they have not bothered to register, we must suspend the existing arrangements for the proxy vote list.
The Minister assured us that not much inconvenience will be caused by this arrangement. Indeed, he has estimated that perhaps no more than 100 Service men or women would not be able to vote at their unit polling stations who presumably would be able to vote if the proxy register were not suspended. I have some doubts about that figure. It would be astonishing if, out of about 300,000, only 100 people were unable to get to the unit polling stations.
Even if only 100 people were thus denied the opportunity to vote, they would be drawn from those members of the Services who had taken the trouble to register on the proxy voting list. Therefore, those interested people would be denied the opportunity to vote which they would have had had we not interfered with the existing system.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I do not know whether the hon. Member was present at the beginning of the debate to hear what the Minister of State and I had to say. I do not think he was, and, therefore, he missed hearing that the arrangements for Service voting were altered in 1969, as a result of which those who registered have gone down by about 50 per cent. and that makes it more difficult for some Service men to vote. It would seem also to destroy partly the hon. Member's argument about the lack of interest, unless he thinks that the level of political interest in the Forces has seriously declined since 1969. Is he saying that it is more important to ensure that 100 people vote than to enfranchise 300,000 who will not vote otherwise?

Mr. Lamond: I have heard every word of the debate. I heard the Minister make that point concerning the alteration in the arrangements which had led to a diminution of the voters' list. That proves nothing except that those not on the list are not interested enough to overcome the difficulties. It is important that we do not disfranchise those who have overcome those increasing difficulties, difficulties which became more severe after 1969, in order to enfranchise no matter how many other people who are not interested enough to have taken the necessary steps.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Do I understand my hon. Friend to be saying two things against the Government amendment? Is he saying first, that it breaks the principle that Government spokesmen have established of keeping as close as possible to the traditional General Election system, and, secondly, that it will create a number of very striking anomalies? Am I correct?

Mr. Lamond: Yes. I want to ask the Minister what will happen under the arrangements since I always like to be able to explain satisfactorily to the constituents who come to my "surgery"

what I have done at the House. If I know my constituency, some of those 100 people who have been disfranchised will arrive at my surgery saying that they have complied with the letter of the law in order to ensure that they have a vote in the referendum and at General Elections. They might say that their friends in their unit laughed at them for going to the trouble to register, asking why they are interested since the matter does not involve them. A constituent might say to me "I am interested enough in politics to have made sure that I have the opportunity to vote, but now I discover that my friends who have been uninterested in the past are to be enfranchised and allowed to vote while I, who have complied with law and done everything to overcome all the increasing difficulties, have been denied the vote." Can anyone sensibly answer that man's complaint?

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Yes.

Mr. Lamond: I certainly cannot.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: As a Member of Parliament with two military bases in her constituency and with about 8,000 potential votes involved, I am quite an expert on all the things that go wrong. Many of these 8,000 who have taken all due steps find, through the sheer problems created by their travelling around, that when they go to the poll in my constituency confidently expecting to vote they do not have a vote. This is the problem the Forces are up against. This is a fact of life, and the margin of error in my constituency is plain for anyone to see. It is not because of any failure in the constituency; it is because of the system. Surely there is a case for saying that these people are in a special category and that whatever the safeguards of the past, which have not worked, we should certainly now consider treating them specially.

Mr. Lamond: I am disappointed in that intervention because it will not enable me to answer sensibly the hypothetical question of a constituent who had done everything to secure a vote but is disfranchised as a result of some subsequent action by this House which he is powerless to comply with.
If the total number of people involved is about 300,000, the average per constituency is about 500 spread evenly over


Great Britain. Of course, these people are not spread evenly because some constituencies are more fruitful recruiting areas than others, particularly working-class constituencies. In those constituencies, therefore, there may be far more than 500 people who are in the Forces.
We have not yet decided whether the vote is to be counted on a national basis or on a constituency basis. There are hon. Members with majorities of fewer than 500. We do not know the distribution of the Service voters, so that no one can say what the result would have been in any constituency had the Service men's vote been counted there. I do not believe that those who are arguing for a count on a constituency basis are doing so because of the convenience of that arrangement. They want a constituency count because they want to find out how their constituencies have voted.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is going a little wide. Will he restrict his remarks to soldiers and not to constituencies?

Mr. Lamond: I am speaking of the constituents who are Service men. I am saying that the Service men entitled to vote in a constituency could easily number 2,000 or 3,000—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Eight thousand.

Mr. Lamond: I do not go to the extremes of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). I do not think it is going too far to put the number at 2,000 or 3,000. No one can say, if the amendment is passed, that his constituency has voted in a particular way unless his majority is exceptionally large. I would not accept such a suggestion unless the majority was more than 2,000 or 3,000. That is the point which those who argue for a count on a constituency basis should bear in mind.

6.0 p.m.

Dr. Glyn: I do not follow the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) in all his arguments, but for once I support the argument of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). A large number of Service people, through no fault of their own, are not on the

register for various reasons, some of which are administrative. The Minister will bear me out on this.
In principle I am against the referendum because it impinges on the sovereignty of Parliament and I do not regard the result of the referendum as binding on Parliament.
It is our duty—the Minister made this quite clear—to ensure that as many people as possible can vote in the referendum. It is particularly important that the Services should be included in that vote.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Will the hon. Gentleman elucidate, for the benefit of the House, what he means by not being bound by the result of the referendum?

Dr. Glyn: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made the position perfectly clear. The hon. Gentleman was present when she did so. I subscribe fully to that view.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) disproved the theory that it was necessary to involve television and the other media. After all, we had elections before we had television. The Minister has moved a long way towards meeting our demands.
However, there are one or two points on which I should like elucidation. First, there are Service men who are on leave from overseas, there are those on courses and there are those who are on duty. I accept that no machinery can be perfect. A considerable number of people could easily be left out. For example, there is the soldier who is posted from BAOR to Northern Ireland. If he had been posted after last October, he would not get the vote unless he was one of those who already had a proxy vote. More effort should also be directed to giving the wives and dependants of Service men the vote.
The Minister mentioned advance voting. Advance voting might cater for those Service men who are on leave and for various other categories. Certainly it could cover the TAVR and those groups of people who through no fault of their own would be excluded at present. If the Minister could enlarge on this aspect, it would be of great help to the Committee.
The question of a constituency count or national count is not of great importance, because Service men's votes could be boxed up, and if the Committee decides that the count is to be on a county or a constituency basis we need only say that in addition to that total number the count for the Service men was X thousand or Y thousand.
I represent a constituency which includes a garrison and I know the difficulties that Service men experience. I welcome what the Minister has said and I hope that he will go a little further in his concession to make sure that all Service personnel and their wives are included in this important decision.

Mr. Leadbitter: When I raised this matter earlier and asked for clarification I hoped that it would have been cleared up, but it has persisted and has been aggravated. Will the corollary of depriving Service men or anyone of a proxy vote mean that those who have the proxy vote will be able to vote personally? That is the issue to which we should address ourselves.
It is not a reasonable assumption that to ease the administration of the voting and counting we should arrive at this peculiar decision not to allow proxy voting. This is contrary to the Government's previous thinking on the referendum and the well-tested practice in many general and local elections. What is abundantly clear is that those who have found it essential, particularly since 1969, to be on the proxy list—and that is another test—should be able to say to the Government that the Government have no right to pursue this course of action because inevitably some people will be disfranchised. Since when was it in the power of the House of Commons or the Government to disfranchise anyone? The Government must think again.
The Minister feels, in response to the point I raised, that there would be a propensity for members of the Forces possibly to vote twice. This would be a breach of the law. One of the great things about this country, whatever else is said, is that basically we are a law-abiding nation. Although there may be some justifiable concern—and I do not quarrel with that—about breaches of the law, the basic nature and character of the

British people is to help the Government by a consensus of opinion and response to carry out the processes of law in the country.
It must be possible for Parliament to accept from practice and experience that members of the Forces who in the past had a proxy vote, and more essentially since 1969, should have such a vote. The need for a proxy vote has been crystallised in this debate. Fewer people have wanted one, for reasons important to them. We should tell them that we know they are law-abiding citizens and comply with the law of the land. They will only vote once. The likelihood of people voting twice bears considerably less weight than the lack of certain people having a chance to vote if this measure is adopted.
I distrust Governments when they talk about putting down Orders in Council on this kind of Bill. Some night at 1 o'clock, when many hon. Members may have disappeared on other commitments, an Order in Council could be debated. We cannot do much about that, especially if the Government decide on a particular procedure to deal with an Order in Council limiting the debate. We would be left with about half an hour to discuss it.
It is not for a Labour Government—it cannot be for any Government—to seek in some way to justify the administrative niceties of counting and collecting the votes by disfranchising people on any consideration whatever. I hope that some thought will be given to this.
We have reached a fine art in developing our administrative scrutinies, using methods of computerisation, apart from the checks and balances available to us from experience. We stretch the imagination of the House of Commons too far by suggesting that we cannot administer this proxy vote for the small number of people involved. There might have been an argument in logic if large numbers had been involved. People in the Forces are not necessarily static. Many of them are mobile, many of them may not even be near a ballot box and some of them may be ill. It does not matter what it is. The Government have a duty to make this matter abundantly clear in Committee.
This is supposed to be a serious matter. The referendum is serious for everyone. It is not for the Minister to decide who will not vote by the nonsense of this little


bit of machinery. The Government may not like my remarks. It is not for the first time that Front Bench Members have not liked what back benchers have had to say. However, I should like any Front Bench Member to come outside Parliament with me and say to the people who have fought for the right to vote "We inside Parliament have a right to deprive you of your vote."
Therefore, since this is a serious matter, I must say to the Minister that if I do not get a firm undertaking about it—not just a promise to do something on Report, if we are to have a Report stage—I shall not vote for his measure.

Mr. Richard Wood: We can no doubt continue for some time discussing the details which are of immense importance to those who will be affected by them, but the real point at issue has been touched on by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter)—that is, whether the Government are prepared to show willingness to try to include among those capable of voting as many people as they possibly can. I hope that during the remainder of this debate and in subsequent debates on other amendments all hon. Members—from the Lord President downwards, if I may express it so—will have this principle in mind.
The Government have said on many occasions that the referendum is unique. It is certainly unique to my hon. Friends, who hope that it is so unique that it will never be repeated. But if it is to exist and if it is unique, surely the Government ought to be moved by a willingness to enfranchise as many people as they possibly can. In other words, will they be impelled by a desire to remove all the obstacles they can and then remove a few more which have so far been thought to be immovable? I hope that this is the spirit that will impel them. It is what this debate and our subsequent debates on other amendments are about.
I should be very sad to see the adult dependants disfranchised and unable to vote. The arguments that I have heard so far do not suggest to me that it would be impossible to give them the vote in this unique referendum. I hope that every effort will be made to include them. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's answers to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for

Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) and those asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) about the volunteers who happen to be in camp on 5th June, or whenever we vote. If they are in camp in this country, presumably they will be eligible for the ordinary postal vote. But if they are abroad, will they be included in the arrangements which the hon. Gentleman is proposing?
Lastly, I hope that the Minister will take seriously what he himself said very seriously, I believe, about publicity. Any arrangements that he is able to make—and I hope he will go even further than he has so far suggested—should be publicised to the maximum extent so that everyone understands them and can take advantage of them.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: In opening the debate the Minister said that he would listen with care to any constructive remarks that might he made in the course of it with regard to the detail of what he is now proposing. I hope shortly to make one or two such constructive remarks.
I have a degree of sympathy with the Minister, having had something to do with electoral procedures when I was at the Home Office. I realise that what at first sight would appear to be the simplest thing of all, such as merely explaining how people got into a polling station to put a cross on a piece of paper, turns out, when it comes to the details, to be some what complicated.
However, as I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is to say for the first time that those who are in the Services or their wives who are actually not on the electoral roll should nevertheless be allowed to vote. One of the Minister's hon. Friends has said that this is a monstrous principle. However, as was pointed out in the evidence given before the Speaker's Conference on this matter, one of the reasons why the percentage of those in the Forces who are registered is low is that Queen's Regulations do not permit them to take part in party politics and, therefore, at a normal election their interest is often considerably less than that of others in filling up forms to vote and things of that nature.
If the referendum is unique it is clearly right, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) has said,


that the principle that should underlie these debates is to see that the highest proportion possible of those entitled to vote are able to vote. Therefore, I go along entirely with the Minister in his general proposals. Specifically, however, what is the order which the Minister intends to lay? As I understand the amendment, it states clearly that those in the Services and their spouses who are abroad or at home should be allowed to vote under special provisions, even though they are not on the electoral register.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has handed me a letter written to him by the Minister on 18th April in which the Minister suggests, for reasons which, frankly, I do not understand, that the order which the Government will lay will cover Service men who are abroad or at home and will cover the wives of Service men when abroad but will not cover the wives of Service men who are stationed at home. If that is correct, will the Minister explain the logic of it? If the argument is that, the Service man and his wife are at present often, for other reasons, off the electoral roll and for the purpose of this referendum we shall allow them to vote, why should it make any difference whether the wife happens to be a wife abroad with her husband or a wife at home with her husband?
The very basis of the amendment is that these people are not on the electoral roll at present. I agree that if a wife is in this country and on the electoral roll, she can use her vote in the normal way. The object of this amendment, however, is to allow those who are not on the electoral roll to vote. If a woman's husband was in this country it would not matter.

Mr. Gow: Perhaps I may assist my hon. and learned Friend. The Minister of State, in answer to an earlier intervention from me, confirmed that the position is precisely as my hon. and learned Friend feared. Therefore, he may wish now to advance arguments not in order to measure what is a hypothesis but against an argument that the Minister of State has confirmed.

Mr. Carlisle: That is what I thought was the result of the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend's intervention. What

I cannot understand is the logic behind this. What I was trying to point out, as the purpose of the amendment is to enfranchise those who otherwise would not be enfranchised because their names are not on the electoral roll—and with that purpose I agree entirely—is that the logic must be the same for doing it for a wife in this country as it is for doing it for those who are abroad. There must be more wives in this country than there are abroad.
The second point is that I cannot accept the powerfulness or the logic of the Minister's argument against the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington has just referred. Presumably in practice, since these people are not on the electoral register, in each unit someone will have to draw up a list not only of the members of that unit who are entitled to vote although they are not on the register but also of their wives. If that list has to be drawn up, why cannot the list include the dependants of those who are living with them if those dependants are over the age of 18?
To take a simple example, there may be a young Service man aged 19 with a wife of 17 who will not be entitled to vote. There would have to be some sort of certificate for a person to sign, saying "I am the wife of a Service man and I am over 18." Why should not these people be able to say that they are the son, daughter, mother-in-law, father-in-law or whatever of the Service man and that they are over 18 and entitled to vote?
I cannot see the distinction between what the Government propose and the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. There is bound to be a Report stage because this is a Government amendment. We have only one or two days in which to table amendments. I ask the Government seriously to consider tabling an amendment on Report which would widen the rights of Service men and their wives and include dependent children.
The only argument advanced against this by the Minister—it is completely fallacious—was that the Speaker's Conference had recommended that Service men and their wives should be able to


vote but had not said anything about dependent children. Let us be clear about the history. What the Speaker's Conference was looking at was the fact that there was a relatively small proportion of people on the Services register. It recommended that we should go back to the system whereby Service men should be on a continuous register—they should be registered when they first entered the Services and remain on the register throughout. The conference also said that that should apply to their wives, who are classed as Service voters. That is not this proposal.
This proposal has nothing to do with the Speaker's Conference proposals. It is purely for the purposes of the referendum. We are saying that we will enfranchise those who would not otherwise be enfranchised so that dependent adults of those in the Services will be in a situation identical to that of members of the Services and their wives.
I entirely accept the force of the argument advanced by the Minister with regard to proxy voting. I do not agree with my hon. Friends who have criticised the removal of proxy votes. It is probably a necessary part of enfranchising people in another way. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm—I believe I may have got it wrong in my intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) because I was thinking of postal votes—that if proxy voting is removed and the person is in this country he will be able to go to the polling station and vote? His name must be on the register if he has a proxy vote.
Despite the advocacy of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), I am not quite sure whether I fully understand the purpose of amendment (c). Am I not right in saying that those who are in the Territorial Army or who volunteer in some way or other are in exactly the same situation as every other citizen? Presumably they are already on the electoral register, having been in this country on 10th October last. They will have had as much chance as anyone else to be on the register. If that is so, they are covered by proxy or postal voting without the need to extend the provisions in the way suggested.
I ask the Minister urgently to reconsider the position of dependent adults and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton about the people attached to the Services although not members of them, NAAFI workers and so on. They must be in the same position and could equally be covered by Government amendments on Report.

Mr. Goodhart: I suspect that I am more in favour of the general principle of the Bill than is the Minister of State. Now that the Bill has received a Second Reading may I express the hope that we are all united in wishing that there will be the largest possible turn-out in the referendum and that as many British citizens as possible will have the right to cast a vote.
It would have been intolerable if only a portion of those serving in the Armed Forces had been able to cast a vote. particularly since the British Army of the Rhine plays a major part in the defence not only of this country but of the European Community as a whole. However, the number of problems associated with this move seem to have grown with the debate. What will happen to those who are on short courses? What will happen to those in detention? We have been encouraging hundreds of Service men to serve in the Persian Gulf area. How will they cast their votes? There is also the problem of the 3,000 members of the TAVR who will be serving with units overseas.
The Minister seemed to think that these people would be reading about our discussions in the columns of the newspapers or clutching at Hansard to study their rights. That is a wild illusion. I hope that every effort will be made, through individual letters, to tell these volunteer Service men about their rights and the machinery which exists.
The problem of dependants is dealt with in amendment (a). The Minister said that there were only 1,000 dependent children who might he enfranchised by the amendment. That is still quite a lot. There are other dependent relatives. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think there were only a handful. My amateur researches suggest that there are over 1,000 grannies, mothers-in-law, aunts


and fathers-in-law living abroad in Service housing. Are the administrative difficulties so great that such people cannot be included?
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) referred to the position of American Service men, suggesting that many of them were not given the right to vote. I have with me the thick list of instructions to American residents overseas who wish to cast their vote in ordinary elections. It is a complicated procedure because there are 50 States and more territories with slightly different rules. It is notable that in almost every case the States allow the dependants of Service men to have an absentee vote. If the Americans can do it with their vastly more complicated procedures, I do not believe that it should be beyond our administrative capacity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) spoke of those who work for the Services and who are Service men in almost everything but name—the NAAFI girls and the NATO wireless operators. I hope that in future amendments we shall be extending the right to vote to all British civilian citizens working overseas. But we have not yet come to those amendments.
In answer to a Question some time ago the Prime Minister seemed to suggest that there would be concessions on this matter. We now read in the Press that any intended concessions have been torn up by the Lord President of the Council. I hope that that report is wrong, but it would be a grave anomaly if people such as NATO wireless operators and NAAFI girls were not given a vote.
I hope that the Minister of State will look at the debate in a generous mood and follow the principle that as many British citizens as possible should be given the right to vote in this referendum.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Gow: I propose to address my remarks to Amendment No. 31. I wish first to question the whole procedure of laying an Order in Council to define the circumstances in which Service men and their wives can vote. I do this because the opportunity for debating an Order in Council is necessarily very much less than the opportunity for debating a clause in a Bill. I think that the Committee is entitled to join the hon. Member for

Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) in saying that the tendency for Governments increasingly to take action by delegated legislation is one which we deplore, and particularly so with a Bill of this importance. I agree with the Lord President of the Council, but I do not think he will disagree with me when I say that the opportunity to debate an Order in Council is less than the opportunity to debate a clause in a Bill.
We have heard from several Government Members that one reason why it has not been possible to include in the Bill the provisions that will be in the Order in Council when it is made is that the decision to hold a referendum has been taken very recently. I wish to seek to disprove that assertion. I have here the text of a letter which was written by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to whom the House was privileged to listen yesterday. Almost exactly three years ago he wrote to his right hon. Friend who was then the Leader of the Opposition in these terms:
I am firmly opposed to the principle of the referendum.

The Chairman: Order. That may well be, but we must try to keep to the question of votes for the Forces.

Mr. Gow: Just so, Mr. Thomas. The point I am seeking to make is that the argument advanced from the Government benches for the wording that will appear in the Order in Council not appearing in the Bill is that the referendum is a new concept that has suddenly been sprung upon us. I am seeking to show the Committee that we have known about the prospect of a referendum for more than three years, and I have called in aid the words of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who for the time being at any rate is a member of the Cabinet.
Suppose, Mr. Thomas, that you do not think the words of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are sufficient to substantiate the point I am putting forward. In that case I am, happily, able to call in aid the words of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, because on the very day that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote to the Prime Minister the right hon. Gentleman received another letter, this time from the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. Russell Kerr: An organised campaign.

Mr. Gow: The right hon. Gentleman said in his letter:
I doubt if this would ever work in practice, although if it did the result would be a very substantial undermining of the existing system of parliamentary responsibility.
I hope that with those two brief quotations I have shown that the Labour Party, and notably the Prime Minister himself, has had in contemplation the holding of a referendum on this matter.

Mr. George Cunningham: We know that.

Mr. Gow: It does no harm to remind Labour Members of it. It lends credence to the point that has been made from this side of the Committee that the Government's claim that they have not had time to prepare their own legislation does not hold water.

Mr. Cunningham: The idea of a referendum is not new. What is relatively new is the idea of conducting it with a franchise different from the one which applies for parliamentary elections, and it ill behoves Conservative Members who are asking for a different franchise to blame the Government for lack of time to devise a method to give effect to that.

Mr. Gow: I was complaining about the device of an Order in Council to deal with a matter of great constitutional importance.
I now turn to the question whether the wives of Service men in the United Kingdom should be granted those facilities which the Minister of State described in his agreeable opening speech. This is what the 1965 Speaker's Conference recommended with regard to wives of Service men. In Cmnd. 3550, published in February 1968, it said:
it should be the duty of the commanding officer of each unit to see that this"—
that is, the registration—
is carried out in time for entries to be made in each ordinary register.
The obligation on Service authorities to obtain such information at such times should extend to wives of service men in the United Kingdom".
I ask the Lord President of the Council to pay attention to this instead of talking to his hon. Friend. This is an important

matter, and I hope that the Minister of State will deal with it when he replies to the debate.
The Speaker's Conference said that the facilities should extend to wives of Service men in the United Kingdom, yet the Minister of State is proposing to go against that recommendation and deny them the facilities which they would have if they were outside the United Kingdom.

Mr. Russell Kerr: You are not on hourly rates.

Mr. Gow: There is another matter to which the Committee would like an answer. What administrative arrangements will be made so that commanding officers are encouraged to give every opportunity for Service men to vote? I now quote from the minutes of evidence given to the Speaker's Conference on Electoral Law on 23rd January last year. This was how a senior electoral registration assistant replied to a question from Mr. Speaker:
With an annual application",
said Mr. Holland, the registration officer for Kensington and Chelsea,
the only difficulty we have found in practice is that there are many less applications than we used to have when they stayed on indefinitely. It seems as though the annual application does not reach the people concerned, or they are just not interested in doing it. Our number of Service voters has dropped drastically since we have had annual registration.
Later, in reply to Mr. Speaker, Mr. Heaton said that about 25 per cent. only—a figure confirmed by the Minister of State in his opening speech—of Service voters were entitled to vote. I hope that the Minister of State will tell the Committee exactly what provision he has in mind for the Order in Council which he will lay to deal with this matter.

Mr. Leadbitter: It is on this point that the Committee must persist in seeking a definition. The hon. Gentleman will remember that paragraph 14 of the White Paper published in February made abundantly clear the Government's undertaking
to ensure that the postal and proxy voting facilities which are available for general elections are also available for the referendum poll.
When the Bill was published in March that was still the intention. It is the amendments which cause us to ask what


has happened between the original statement of the Government's intention and today.

Mr. Gow: I support the question which the hon. Gentleman has addressed to the Minister of State. The point to which I was coming was the breath-taking assertion by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that, because many Service men do not have the advantage of watching television, they might be deprived of the right to vote. It may not have occurred to Labour Members that there are many of my constituents who cannot afford television sets but who nevertheless have the right to vote and who in February of last year inflicted such a defeat on a Labour candidate that he lost his deposit. The argument that only those who watch television should be allowed to vote is a piece of arrogance typical of the Labour Party.
I hope that the Minister of State will accept Amendment (b) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton).
On Amendment (a), an astonishing argument was advanced by the Minister of State. He relied on precedent. It may be that Tory Governments have relied on precedent, but it was astonishing to hear a Minister of State in a Labour Government rely on precedent as a defence of the status quo. I hope that the Minister of State will tell the Committee that he can accept Amendment (a).
As for Amendment (c), the definition of "member of the Forces" given in Section 46 of the Representation of the People Act 1949 is much too restrictive. I hope that on consideration the Minister of State will agree to accept Amendment (c) as well.

Mr. Michael Latham: As there are three Service bases in my constituency, I want to clear up one or two points so that I can explain the position to those of my constituents who are at those bases. I have a heartfelt reason for saying this, because in February of last year Service men constituents of mine came to see me because there had been a muddle over the voting arrangements which ended with their not being able to cast their votes.
Amendment No. 31 in the name of the Lord President of the Council is the main

amendment in this group and arises from his speech on Second Reading, in particular that portion of it which is reported at columns 1422–23. There was one important sentence in the Lord President's speech which did not entirely tally with what the Minister of State said today. It related to the question of men on leave. Speaking of Service men and their wives, the Lord President said this:
The present proxy voting arrangements for Service men abroad will be cancelled, but those in this country will be able, if they prefer, to vote instead in person or by postal vote."—[Official Report, 10th April 1975; Vol. 889, c. 1422–23.]
What is the meaning of the words "those in this country"? Does it mean that those at present based in this country—for example, Service men at the three bases in my constituency—will be able to go along in person to the polling station or to vote by post? If so it is clear, but it does not deal with those at present on leave.
An alternative meaning of the words "those in this country" may be Service men who are on leave from their units abroad and who are physically in this country on referendum day. The amendment is so general as not to make the matter clear. I see no reason why it should not be possible for Service men in that situation to go to a unit in Britain and present their identity cards and cast a vote. Alternatively, they could cast their votes at a polling station.
6.45 p.m.
The second matter of detail concerns people who will lose their votes because of the proxy system being abandoned for the purposes of the referendum. The Minister of State said that one of the advantages of the unit voting scheme abroad which he put forward and which I support is that as a matter of hard fact the vast majority of units are east of the Greenwich meridian and they would have a time advantage. The Committee will remember that there was a certain amount of mirth when the Minister of State made that point.
Although I accept that most units abroad are east of the Greenwich meridian, no doubt some lie west of the Greenwich meridian and there will be some Service men in that position on referendum day. My father, who was a regular Service man until he retired not so long ago, was for a time posted to a


United States naval base in Norfolk, Virginia. That is west of Greenwich and for that there is a substantial time lag. What arrangements have been made so that Service men in that position will be able to cast their votes and so that their votes will be transported to the central counting base in time to be counted?
Finally, even after having listened to the Minister of State I cannot understand why it is necessary to disfranchise anybody. The Minister of State said in effect that it would be very risky to allow Service men to be able to have a proxy vote under present arrangements and also to have the possibility of voting in their units. In reply to my intervention the Minister of State said "The hon. Gentleman must keep this matter in proportion. There are hundreds of thousands who would potentially be able to do that and only one hundred or so will lose their vote under the arrangements that I propose."
I do not think that there are likely to be many Service men who will want to break the law by casting two votes, whether deliberately or otherwise. That is not a serious possibility. In any case, even if it were a serious possibility, which I do not for a moment accept, Clause 4 enables the Government to prevent any challenge on that matter.
The Committee would feel much happier if the Minister of State were to say that the Government do not want to take away anybody's right to vote and that there is no reason why both systems should not be combined, as many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) have suggested. I hope that this point will be further considered.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: Agreeing that we are not discussing the principle of this deplorable measure or going into any of the unfortunate details other than those necessary to get the widest possible vote in this great democratic breakthrough—I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that in this great adventure in non-parliamentary government we should get the maximum vote that we can muster—I wonder whether what the Government had in mind in the amendment was permission to vote for all those who are full-time

employees of Her Majesty abroad in connection with the Army, the Navy and the Air Force.
I should like to ask the Minister of State, who is in a position to know because he is a Minister for the Army, how many full-time civilian employees are attached to and work with the Army abroad. If we are increasing the number of civilian personnel who are rendering assistance to the Forces, is it not ironical that these people should be denied a vote? I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would tell us how many full-time civilian employees of the Crown, attached to the Forces abroad, are in this category. Would it not be better to enfranchise this group for this purpose by saying not "Armed Forces" but "all full-time employees of the Crown stationed abroad attached to the Armed Forces "? I believe that it is anachronistic for 50,000 Service men and their wives in Germany to be able to vote, but not the considerable number of technical, skilled, medical and other staff attached to them who are for practical purposes identified with the Forces.

Mr. Michael Mates: I express my sympathy with the Minister, sympathy which comes from my practical experience. I know the difficulty which he is encountering in trying to cover, I am sure perfectly genuinely, as many people as he can. He was very candid when he said that he was bound to fail with a few. I shall not go into the sort of extreme cases where he might find that he is unable to get a vote into the ballot box.
I should like to ask the Minister about the timing of the vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) raised the question of the different time zones. I lost the thread of the Minister's speech. He started by saying that there would be a variable time during which the vote was taken, quite apart from how far various units were from Greenwich. He went on to say that some units would be unable to vote on the day, because they might be in ships at sea or taking part in a remote exercise, and, therefore, would have to vote a day or two days before 5th June—if 5th June is the date. These votes would have to be sealed.
Later the Minister said that there would be others who would be away from their


units for a considerable time, and it would be administratively extremely difficult for them to vote in the lodger unit. They might be doing an exchange with a foreign unit on their own or in a small number. They would have to cast their vote a week or two weeks before 5th June.
The Minister said that there would be people on leave and doing courses. Therefore, we are now stretching the time during which polling might take place for certain Service men to perhaps three weeks at the outside, but at least 10 days. If this is the case, is it not opening the door to the solution of many of the difficulties which his right hon. Friend the Lord President put forward as to why various people serving abroad, other than Service men, cannot vote? If this principle is to be accepted for Service men—and I warmly recommend that it should be—why can it not be accepted for other officials working overseas?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will know that we shall come later to other categories overseas. Perhaps he will leave his arguments until then, trusting that he will catch the eye of the Chair.

Mr. Mates: I was trying to make certain that I had understood the Minister of State aright when he said that the voting would be stretched over perhaps 10 days or a fortnight in certain cases. However, I shall leave the point, as you have directed, Mr. Thomas.
The second point I should like to make, which may be of some help, is that to allow dependants of Service men over the age of 18 to vote, as well as other civilians who are working in Service establishments, would not cause the administrative difficulties that the Minister seems to envisage. Certainly in Germany, where the bulk of them are, and in almost every other station, all these people are identified. In Germany they come under the Status of Forces Agreement, and dependants are given a status identification card. The dependants and wives of Service men in Germany come under the command of the Commanding Officer for certain administrative and legal purposes.
There would be no administrative difficulty in drawing into this wider franchise all the people who support the Services

and all those members of families who are not at present included in the amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not allow administrative difficulties to make this impossible, because administratively it would not be difficult, and he could allow many people who are not drawn within this net to vote in the referendum.

Mr. William Rodgers: Occasionally during the past two hours I have reflected on the foolishness of trying to do good. I had hoped that the Government amendments would be warmly welcomed and swiftly passed. However, not only have I been accused of blocking amendments in the name of other right hon. and hon. Members, but doubt has even been cast on the validity of the Government amendments themselves. Therefore, I come to the Dispatch Box somewhat ruefully and conscious that if I speak as long as I did at the beginning I shall be forgiven by no one, and that if I speak shortly I shall be forgiven by none of those who have raised important points during the debate. My only comfort is that I shall be condemned cross-bench for whatever I may or may not say.
I was grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) for what he said about the complications of electoral law. I have been learning rapidly until today, but I have learnt even more rapidly in the past three hours. All the points which have been made will be taken fully into account.
I was also grateful for the generous remarks made by the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) at the end of our exchange. From his own close personal and recent experience he knows the problems, but I shall not take refuge in the administrative difficulties in meeting the wishes of the Committee. On the contrary, I would argue that we are able to do only as much as we are offering to do and as much as I hope the Committee will approve of, because of the organisation and discipline which characterise the Armed Forces and which make the impossible possible from time to time. That is why I draw no conclusion from this particular experience for other occasions.
The hon. Gentleman argued an important point which is at the heart of my objection to the two other amendments which are being put forward. What


we are seeking to do—and I can give an undertaking that we shall continue in this way—is to ensure that all those who are currently eligible to be on the Service register have the best possible chance to vote on the day. That is our commitment. It is embodied in the legislation. It will be embodied in the Order of Council made by the Lord President and in the regulation then made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
There is a difference between doing our best for those who are entitled—although they may not be registered—and bringing in other categories. This is a difference not of administration but of principle. I can fully understand that the Committee may take a different view, but I ask hon. Members who are in favour of the Government's amendment to recognise that it is a different view in principle and has nothing to do with our wish to widen the area within which those who are entitled to vote are able to do so on the day.
With respect to a number of hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), my opening remarks were not necessarily taken in at the time. I blame no one for that. Our present arrangements, as I spelt them out, are meant to allow for a wide variety of situations and to create a wide variety of formulae. There will be voting in units. There will be advance voting. There will be circumstances where proxies continue. Without going in detail into every point raised, we accept the wish of the Committee to enable all those Service men and their spouses and those who come into this category as previously accepted to vote either on the day or in advance if possible.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) spoke about the 42 hours' delay. I remind him that it is usually on the Saturday afternoon following a General Election that the results from the constituency of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), if not from that of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and possibly that of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing), are declared. In other words, although we anticipate the outcome of the General Election, the total vote is not usually known until after 36 hours.
7.0 p.m.
Our best estimate is that, whether there is a count at the centre or in the counties or constituencies, we shall be able to deliver the votes within the time scale that I indicated. But we allow for flexibility. I repeat my undertaking that we shall do our best, and we hope that those disfranchised will be very few.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) who said in a passionate speech that it was wrong for the House to take away anyone's vote, but ultimately it is for the House to decide to enfranchise or disfranchise. It is a difficult decision for the House to make under its own legislation determining elections of whatever kind.
What I have said is that my best guess is that if the amendments are approved, and if the regulations are made in the spirit that the House would wish, it is possible that 0·025 per cent. of those who might now vote will be disfranchised. It may be that some of those will be in the constituencies of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn or of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool. If so, I am sorry. If they were all in mine I should be prepared to deal with them one by one, explaining the greater good. There is a greater good as we see it. Given the greater good, we shall nevertheless do what we can to reduce that figure to the absolute minimum.
The electoral law is highly complex. It may not be known, for example, that if one elects for a proxy and turns up in the polling station before the proxy has voted, one can vote. This is a useful safeguard for some who might appear to be disfranchised by the circumstances of this legislation.
We shall naturally consider everything that has been said today. We are most anxious that wives should no more be disfranchised than their husbands, and we do not believe that they are. There is flexibility on the day of voting, again, to include as many as we can.
We are satisfied that volunteers are properly provided for under the normal electoral legislation. In response to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), I give an undertaking that we shall do all we can to make these facili-


ties known to those who may be abroad, serving as reserves, on the day. We are doing our best in this legislation. We believe that the principle upon which the amendments are based is sound, and we hope that they will be supported. We also hope that the other amendments will not be pressed, because they do not fall within the principles which I think the Committee, on reflection, will believe to be important and deserving of continuing respect.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: My hon. Friend did not answer the question about the adult dependants. Will he say something about them?

Mr. Rodgers: The adult dependants, like the children of Service men serving abroad, are not within the category of Service men normally accepted by the House. In other words, they are not eligible to be registered. Therefore, pending a decision of the Committee on wider matters, I ask hon. Members to reject the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).

Mr. Carlisle: I am still not convinced. The Minister is specifically allowing to vote those who are not registered—Service men and their wives—by saying that they can go to a polling station, give their name and then vote. Why is it different if the adult dependent is not a Service man's wife?

Mr. Rodgers: It is a question of eligibility. All Service people are eligible to vote, although many of them are not registered. The dependants are not eligible under existing legislation.

Mr. Onslow: The Minister's distinction will not stand up, because he is applying that criterion to Service men and their wives overseas and separating the Service wives in this country. If he relies on the criterion of what the Speaker's Conference recommended, surely he understands that It recommended that there should be no distinction between Service wives, whether their husbands were overseas or at home.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to

Question, That the amendment be made, put accordingly and agreed to

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

Mr. MacFarquhar: I beg to move Amendment No. 101, in page 1, line 11, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (4AA) of this section'.

The Deputy Chairman: With this amendment we are to take the following amendments:

No. 14, In page 1, line 12, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
'(a) all the persons who, at the date appointed for the holding of the referendum are resident either within the United Kingdom or who are British citizens having a right of abode in the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act 1971, and who would otherwise than as hereafter stated be entitled to be registered to vote as electors at a parliamentary election, whether or not present within any constituency at the date of the referendum, whether or not temporarily or permanently resident at the date of the referendum outside the United Kingdom or for any reason absent from the United Kingdom, and whether or not their names appear on the electoral register current at the date appointed for the referendum, and'.

No. 16, in page 1, line 14, after 'constituency', insert
'with the exception of those persons who are citizens of the Republic of Ireland and not also citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies'.

No. 17, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'and'.

No. 19, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—
'and
(c) British nationals who—

(i) were on the tenth day of October 1974 resident in a country outside the United Kingdom in an official or business capacity, and
(ii) are at the date of the referendum of the age of eighteen years or over, and
(iii) are not entitled to vote in the referendum under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection'.

No. 21, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—
'(c) British subjects resident within any of the countries of the European Economic Community'.

No. 22, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—
'(c) British subjects having the right of abode in the United Kingdom but residing abroad who are not on the current United Kingdom electoral register and who do not have the right to vote in any other country'.

No. 24, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—
'(c) persons entitled to vote, as set out in subsection 3(a) above, but who may be absent from home on the day the referendum is held, and
(d) all persons having a right of abode in the United Kingdom as defined in the Immigration Act 1971 who are temporarily resident overseas on the day the referendum is held'.

No. 32, in page 2, line 4, at end insert—
'(4A) An order under this section may enable the Secretary of State to make special provisions with respect to any persons to permit such persons to vote in the referendum notwithstanding that they are not duly registered in accordance with section 1(3)(a) of this Act who have had an address in the United Kingdom and possess a certificated right of abode in the United Kingdom '.

No. 102, in page 2, line 4, at end insert—
'(4AA) An Order in Council under this section may make or enable the Secretary of State to make special provision with respect to persons, or any description of persons, who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, being British passport holders, living abroad, and may do so differently with respect to different cases; and any provision so made—

(a) may permit persons to whom it applies to vote in the referendum notwithstanding that they are not duly registered under the Representation of the People Acts, and, if they have or have had an address in the United Kingdom, notwithstanding that the conditions of those Acts as to residence are not satisfied; and
(b) may enable persons to whom it applies to vote at a date earlier than that appointed under subsection (4)(a) of this section and may also enable them to vote at a polling station set up in accordance with that provision or by post'.

No. 128, in page 2, line 4, at end insert—
'(4B) An Order in Council under this section may make or enable the Secretary of State to make special provision with respect to persons, or any description of persons, who are working for international organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member or for other governments under schemes approved by Her Majesty's Government or for the spouses or adult dependants of such persons, and may do so differently with respect to different cases; and any provision so made—

(a) may permit persons to whom it applies to vote in the referendum notwithstanding that they are not duly registered under the Representation of the People Acts, and, if they have or have had an address in the United Kingdom, notwithstanding that the conditions of those Acts as to residence are not satisfied; and

(b) may enable persons to whom it applies to vote at a date earlier than that appointed under subsection (4)(a) of this section and may also enable them to vote at a polling station set up in accordance with that provision or by post'.

No. 103, in Clause 2, page 2, line 16, at end insert: '(except in so far as special provision is made in pursuance of section 1(4AA) of this Act'.

No. 39, Clause 2, page 2, line 32, at end insert:
'(d) in a country outside the United Kingdom by Her Majesty's representative in that country'.

Mr. MacFarquhar: The substantive issue is covered in my Amendment No. No. 102.
We are now taking the question of British citizens abroad separately from the question of holiday makers.
The issue is the extension of the franchise for the purposes of the referendum—and the referendum only, in my view—to British passport holders, citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies, who are living abroad but who have or have had an address in the United Kingdom. They are people who, one assumes, have no constituency, so there is likely to be no question of the principle being extended to a General Election, when the elector is voting on a constituency basis for individual Members of Parliament.
As a non-professional draftsman I am conscious, as any back bencher must be, that my amendment may not be framed elegantly or precisely enough to achieve my exact object. If so, adjustments could be made if it were passed. In framing the amendment, however, I have been guided by the way in which the Government framed their amendment on Service voters which we have just passed. If the Government's amendment was well drafted, mine should be reasonably satisfactory. I hope that the Government will respond on the question of principle rather than on details, just as my hon. Friend the Minister asked the Committee to vote on the Government amendment on the principle and not to press relatively trivial amendments.
The principle behind the amendment was set out by several speakers, including myself, in the Second Reading debate. We are often told by the Goverment that the holding of the referendum is a unique occasion, and I agree. The referendum


has never before been used as an all United Kingdom device. That is one unique aspect. Secondly, Cabinet collective responsibility has been abandoned for this unique occasion. Thirdly, Government Ministers and back benchers have been allowed a free vote, despite the Government recommendation on policy on the crucial issue of whether we should be in or out of the EEC. Again, Cabinet Ministers are allowed publicly to disagree outside Parliament on the issue that the Government are recommending.
It is not my purpose to question the Government's policy in enumerating these novelties. I am in favour of the referendum and I am prepared to accept the novelties. In all those ways the referendum is unique and will have a number of unique consequences. Its introduction has caused a great deal of heart-searching on both sides of the House of Commons.
In the unique circumstances of the referendum I believe that there should be a unique extension of the franchise to British citizens living and working abroad as defined in the amendment. Whether we are "pro" or "anti", we all agree that it is an issue which will settle the fate of Britain for decades, perhaps even for centuries.
A person who misses a General Election by being abroad or by some other accident of whereabouts has the consolation that within three, four or five years—perhaps even eight months—he will again have the opportunity to vote on the shape of the Government of the country. Given the time that it takes a Government to get legislation through the House of Commons, missing one General Election need not be regarded as a major deprivation. However, in this case if someone misses the vote by being abroad or by not being on the Service register he will have lost the right of ever casting his vote on this crucial decision that affects not merely the voter himself but his children, grandchildren and, doubtless, further generations.

Mr. Neil Marten: Is that an admission that this is our last chance to get out of the Common Market?

Mr. MacFarquhar: I know the hon. Gentleman's views on this issue but I suspect that if the referendum goes the way I hope it will—in favour of a

"Yes" vote for staying in—even if his energy is unflagging the hon. Gentleman will find that a great many people who may follow him in the referendum will not pursue the matter further.
Many thousands—probably tens of thousands—of people who are abroad are abroad precisely because Britain is in the Common Market. Parliament took a decision and we went into the Common Market. Many of the people abroad in Government employment and in business went abroad for that reason. Their future will be affected by the referendum vote even more directly and more swiftly than will be the future of Members of Parliament and the rest of their fellow-citizens.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Does not my hon. Friend agree that those who entered the eight other Community countries after we signed the treaty were not only permitted but actively encouraged to do so?

Mr. MacFarquhar: That point is well taken. Entry into the Common Market set up a whole series of movements of people which led to British citizens being abroad. British citizens whose future is concerned with the Common Market are threatened by not having the right to vote on this issue. Can the Government maintain that on this crucial decision, this unique occasion, those people who are most directly affected by it should he denied the vote?
7.15 p.m.
There is an analogy here with the 1945 General Election. It was felt then that it would be unjust and plainly ridiculous if the men who had fought abroad for the right of this country to continue to hold General Elections were denied the right to vote in the General Election that the Labour Party insisted that the Coalition Government should hold.

Mr. Ken Weetch: Have not the first category of persons my hon. Friend mentioned gone abroad voluntarily, whereas the absence abroad of people during wartime was anything but voluntary?

Mr. MacFarquhar: That is an incredibly fine point. It was always possible for a Service man, if he wished, to register as a conscientious objector. Those who


fought for their country did so voluntarily. The people I am talking about have gone abroad voluntarily for their country. To draw that kind of distinction is to strain at a gnat.
The collection of Service men's votes and Service men on that occasion included civilians—bristled with difficulties even greater than those affecting citizens abroad on this occasion. The debates of the time and the commentaries on the election show that there were stupendous difficulties for the Government of the day in attempting to arrange for those Service men to vote.
There was the remoteness of Service men, including civilians. There was the fact that in the wartime situation which still prevailed in the Far East there were transfers between units. There was the danger of someone voting twice, once by proxy and once directly. In one of the books that dealt with that election it is pointed out that in Oxford as many as 8 per cent. of Service votes voted twice. They were caught by the registration officers—perhaps an indication that any anomalies that might arise in this case could also be caught by our efficient officers.
Even more important, at that time the number of Service voters was almost 10 per cent. of the voting population—3 million Service voters out of 33 million. Special provisions were made for prisoners of war, which made the arrangements extremely difficult for the election officers. Even for the civilian population there were tremendous difficulties because over the previous five years the population had been highly mobile. The literature of the time shows the enormous number of complaints that were made about the whole situation.
There is a basic difference between then and now. Then, hon. Members of both parties accepted that the occasion was a special one and that the Service men had to be given the right to vote. With a will to overcome the difficulties, they proceeded and succeeded. I am not attempting to gloss over the fact that there will be difficulties on this occasion, but they can also be overcome. Indications that difficulties could be overcome were given in an article in the Sunday Times of 20th April on the subject of expatriate votes from which I quote:

Whitehall experts are not too bewildered by the prospect of having to round up such a far-flung electorate.
There was no indication as late as that that the people who will be in charge of administering the vote if the amendment is passed were bewildered or horrified at the thought of doing so.
I know that one or two hon. Members have raised the issue of tax dodgers. It is thought that floating around the Continent, and especially in the sunnier climes, there may be hundreds of thousands of such people to whom the vote should be denied. If it were possible in the time available to eliminate those citizens who have gone abroad and never intend to return by forcing them to sign an affidavit to the effect that they do not intend to return, I would be prepared to contemplate excluding them. However, that is a very small problem.
According to an article in the colour magazine of the Daily Telegraph written by someone who has surveyed certain colonies on previous occasions and who knows them well, there are approximately 10,000 living on the Costa del Sol and perhaps 2,000 to 3,000 people living on the Algarve. Even assuming that all those people are tax dodgers, that would amount, on the basis of the figures that I believe the Lord President has, to only 1 per cent. of the total electorate involved in the amendment.
Even if such people were to be included in the franchise it is highly unlikely that the tax dodger would bother to vote. In the first place, by going abroad to dodge his taxes he has, in effect, cut off his links with this country and is probably uninterested in its future. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, he might well fear that if he were to go to a consulate or embassy and sign some documents he might in some way incriminate himself. I suspect that this is a phoney objection. At the most the amendment is liable to put only a few thousand such people on the register, and probably not even that many.
It seems that in the previous debate on Service men voters the Government have given away the principle on which they are fighting this amendment. It is noticeable that two of my hon. Friends who are no longer present—namely, the hon. Members for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and Oldham, East (Mr.


Lamond)—responded directly to a question put by me on this issue. Both my hon. Friends admitted that the whole principle of sticking as close to the register as possible had been given away. That principle has been sold down the river by Government Amendment No. 13. I am glad that it was successful not merely because the principle was established but because 75 per cent. of Service men will not be denied the vote.
A further point that arose out of the previous debate is the extent to which the Government are prepared, on something to which they are committed, to go to extraordinary lengths to achieve a desirable result. My hon. Friend the Minister of State was honest enough to admit that even now he has not worked out all the details. He could not give the precise number of units within about 50 per cent. In effect, he asked us to take him on trust. He indicated that he would do his best to ensure that the will of the House—namely, that the maximum number of Service voters will be entitled to vote in the referendum—will be observed.
If the Government are prepared to accommodate themselves to these difficulties with Service voters and if they are prepared to come to the Committee without having completed their arrangements on this subject, I see no reason for their not being prepared to go further on the question of citizens who are living abroad.
The Minister of State told us that 300,000 Service men might have been disfranchised. I have heard from responsible people that the number of British citizens abroad is even higher. I have heard of figures as high as 3 million although I do not think that that view is held very strongly. I gather that a more likely figure is approximately 1·2 million, of whom perhaps 400,000 are on a register. We are all glad to know that 300,000 Service men will be given the vote but it seems that 800,000 citizens intimately concerned with the referendum vote will not have the vote.

Mr. Adley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave a Written Answer last Thursday and disclosed that 366,000 British passport holders currently living abroad have the

right of abode in the United Kingdom as defined in the Immigration Act 1971, excluding those living in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States? If the hon. Gentleman examines the list he will find that the numbers are nothing like as alarming as is suggested by many of those who have been trying to oppose the idea that he is putting forward.

Mr. MacFarquhar: The problem is that the people who are citizens abroad and who would fall justifiably within my amendment include those resident in the United States or in one or two other countries such as Australia and Canada. They are not normally in the habit of registering with embassies and consulates. The number may be significantly larger. I am working on the basis of figures which I have been given by, I think, reliable sources.
I address a number of questions to my right hon. Friend the Lord President. First, is it true that whatever the number of foreign citizens abroad there will be no question of delay in the referendum vote if they are enfranchised by the amendment? Will he say "Yes" to the question that there will be no delay on account of this amendment? Secondly, is it true, as reported in the Sunday Times and as I quoted a short time ago, that Whitehall thinks that it can handle this vote? Thirdly, will he tell the Committee, especially in view of the last intervention, precisely how many people he believes are likely to be disfranchised if the amendment is rejected by the Government?
If the answers to the questions that I have raised on the practicability of the amendment are such that the amendment would not delay the referendum vote, I appeal to the Government to reconsider this issue. I ask my right hon. Friend to remember two things. First, the referendum itself was an item of party policy on which most of my right hon. and hon. Friends voted for the Government. Secondly, the conduct of the referendum is not an issue of policy within the party or, as far as I am aware, anywhere else. That policy is now being decided. I point out to my right hon. Friend that the amendment will not add to the Government's expenditure by £60 million or £100 million as in the case of the pensioners' earnings rule.
This is an amendment which is designed to give large numbers of our fellow citizens their most precious political possession—namely, their vote. That is a matter for which the House of Commons and the people have fought over the centuries. I plead with the Government not to deny it to them.

7.30 p.m.

Sir Michael Havers: The Committee will appreciate that there is a great deal of work still to be done tonight. Therefore, I shall be brief.
A great deal has already been said by the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar). I agree with him that this is a unique occasion. The result of the referendum will be felt not just for months or years but over generations. It is an issue which, uniquely, is being taken away from Parliament, for it is an issue which is fundamental to the United Kingdom. It is an issue which, if the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and his colleagues are right, will be decided by the country and not, if they get their way, by Parliament.
The official Opposition's view is that British people overseas working for Britain should be entitled to vote in this most important referendum.
I believe that if these proposals are practicable they should be implemented, but I also feel that we should like to hear about the difficulties of the proposals. As I said in winding up the Second Reading debate, there has been a great deal of time for thought to be given to the question of how the voting should be carried out. The Government have had since February to consider these matters. Therefore, we shall find it difficult to accept any excuse that there is not enough time to put into practice what should be done if we are to give Britons a vote.
The Opposition have tabled amendment No. 22, which we believe is neater and more effective than Amendment No. 101. We are a little anxious to see how wide the amendment is. There is nobody in the Committee, however anxious or keen he may be that overseas Britons should be given the right to vote, who would wish to extend the provision to Hong Kong Chinese, Kenyans or Ugandans. But there is a safeguard provided in the subsection which requires the Secretary of State

by Order in Council to publish and provide for the classes entitled to vote under the amendment. That would have to be confirmed by the House in an affirmative resolution.
If the amendment proved to be too wide, the remaining safeguard would exist to enable the House to make certain that the classes to be given the vote are given it and nobody else. The House will retain the power to take action in that regard. Therefore, we can safely rely on the Secretary of State—and, if not, on the House—to provide those safeguards.
The principle of the matter has already been established. Therefore, although I prefer our Amendment No. 22—not only because it pinpoints the right of abode but because it excludes those who have a right to vote in another country—if the safeguards I have outlined are included, we would be prepared to support Amendment No. 101.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: I have much sympathy with the point of view put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), who supports the need to narrow the definition of those who might be eligible. The people who are intended to be covered by the amendment are clear in the minds of many of us—namely, those British people abroad who have some entitlement to vote in the referendum by virtue of birth, residence or the fact that they have made some contribution to Britain abroad. Therefore, in general terms I support the views advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), who moved this necessary amendment.
As the referendum goes on, discussions about its constitutional validity right up to the moment of the referendum will centre on the definition of "the people". In its origins it began with the denunciation of an action which took Britain into the Common Market in defiance of, or contrary to, the wholehearted willingness of the British people. I would regard it as lamentable if we were to make a distinction between "the people" and what George Orwell called the "non-people"—those who are eligible to vote because they belong to the people and those who, somehow or other, will be excluded by an arbitrary definition of


themselves as "non-people". For that reason we should consider who are the people at whom the amendment aims.
I know that there is some prejudice against those abroad who might be considered eligible to vote on the ground that they are tax-dodgers or people who have fled from Britain to serve some private interest contrary to the country's national interest. However, it is within the observation of most of us when we go abroad that those residents abroad with whom we are concerned in this discussion are engaged in the export trade, or are civil servants, teachers, students—all kinds of useful people who serve our country abroad and should be considered eligible to vote.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that civil servants are covered anyway? They have the vote at present and will have a vote in the referendum without any special arrangements having to be made.

Mr. Edelman: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I was thinking of those members of the Civil Service who had retired to the countries in which they had served and should be entitled to a vote in the referendum since they consider themselves to be part of the British people. It is a category of people who should not be excluded from such an entitlement.
I am sure that semantics will enter actively in the course of the campaign. Those who wish to adopt a demagogic standpoint on the referendum increasingly will wish to make divisive distinctions between those people who vote in the referendum and those who should not. Gradually distinctions will be made between patrials and non-patrials—between people and "non-people". There will be a possibility of a gradual escalation in terms of those who should be excluded from the right to vote in the referendum. Therefore, my hon. Friend in urging the rights of those Britons who are abroad to vote in the referendum is urging a course which should commend itself to the Committee.
It is the nature of a referendum that those on one side or other tend to take a suspicious view of the motives of others. I do not attribute undesirable motives to those who say that the "non-people" should be excluded. I do not imagine

that such people are more likely or less likely to vote "Yes" or "No", as the case may be. What I am concerned about is their entitlement to take part in the referendum. I believe that as our fellow Britons abroad, they have as much entitlement as anybody resident in this country. Therefore, to exclude them is to take an entirely arbitrary decision. Even on the grounds of administrative convenience, there is no reason why Britons resident abroad should not declare their votes at the nearest consulate or embassy. I see no reason why, once we have defined the category to be included, those people should not report to the nearest consulate and exercise their constitutional right.
What is happening now is that we are agreeing that if we allow them to be excluded, there will be some arbitrary constitutional distinction between Britons in London and Britons abroad. For those reasons I believe that my hon. Friend's amendment should be supported.

Mr. David Steel: I rise to indicate my support and that of my right hon. and hon. Friend, for the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Mac-Farquhar) and, being in a generous mood, for the Opposition amendment. It may be that the amendment has been too widely drawn. In that case, it can be corrected. Therefore, I intend to be present if the amendments are pressed to a Division.
Amendment No. 14, which has not been selected for a vote, had the great merit of defining those entitled to vote.
I am concerned about the 350,000 citizens abroad. There is particular concern for the 100,000 men and women whose jobs have taken them to Europe since we joined the Common Market. Unlike Service men and diplomats, who are already registered to vote, those people have been sent abroad to promote exports to further the interests of British commerce and industry or to represent our interests in the various international organisations. For example I refer to the British staff of the European Parliament and those working in the Commission in Brussels. It is unfortunate that those men and women, on whom depends the success of our future participation in the


Community, shold be deprived of a vote through an oversight of Parliament.
It is irrelevant to argue that to give such people living overseas a vote would require a change in the electoral law when the referendum process requires new legislation. I raised this matter in a public speech on 21st February. I understand that there are administrative difficulties. However, it will be difficult to persuade Parliament that from February to June it has been impossible for the Government to devise a scheme for registration of such people at consulates or embassies.
My remarks on the subject were reported and I received many letters, one of which is from a member of the staff of the European Parliament. It reads:
Those of us who have been sent out here for more than six months cannot remain on the register legally in our old constituency in Britain so unless a very complex postal system is set up, the proposal to vote at a consulate seems to be the best one.
That is a view with which I agree.
I do not propose to go into the question of tax vultures in detail. A typical letter on the subject reads:
But is it a serious offence to follow our chosen calling abroad? Is a British citizen to be taken to have demonstrated unconcern with his country's future by the act of departing its shores? This is self-evident nonsense.
I accept that we do not allow such persons to vote at General Elections, when we choose Members of Parliament. Having left the country, those people are not entitled to direct representation by a specific Member of Parliament. That does not apply in the case of this peculiar—I use the word in its real sense—referendum. We have much more time in which to organise. A number of categories of people might have been included at parliamentary elections. They were excluded in the past because of the limited length of notice of the General Election. That cannot apply in a referendum when its date is known and the procedures have been fixed for some time.
I support the amendments which seek to extend the franchise to those living abroad.

7.45 p.m.

Dr. Colin Phipps: I support the amendment moved by my hon.

Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar). I speak from personal experience as a United Kingdom citizen who worked abroad for eight years. My family and I lived overseas and three of my children were born in foreign countries. During that period I worked for a British company, although I had every intention of returning to the United Kingdom. However, I was not dismayed at the fact that I could not vote in the General Elections. I knew that I was unable to vote for a specific Member of Parliament in one constituency. However, I was equally aware that when I returned to Britain I would have the opportunity to vote in as many General Elections as occurred during the remainder of my life.
However, I submit that had I been living overseas when a referedum—which we were told was unique—was held in the United Kingdom I would have resented the fact that I was not allowed to vote, not only on account of my future and of that of my wife but on account of my four children.
This is the situation in which a large number of British citizens currently find themselves. They are working overseas, in many cases for periods of two to five years. They do not resent the fact that they cannot vote at General Elections. However, they will resent being unable to vote in a referendum which will uniquely determine the future of the country in which they and their children will spend the majority of their lives.
We are not speaking of the hordes of tax dodgers living on the Costa del Sol. The argument against enabling them to vote is akin to the argument that we should scrap the National Health Service because it is abused by 2 per cent. of the population. That argument has neither substance nor logic.
We have been told that if this amendment were adopted it would affect what happens at General Elections. I do not believe that that has any substance. There is a distinction between a unique, once-and-for-all referendum—its uniqueness has been stressed time and time again—and General Elections, which are repeatable year after year, as we expect in the present political climate. Since the war I believe that we have averaged one election every three years. People will have many opportunities to vote at future elections. However, there is a difference


between a referendum and an election. I do not believe that we shall be setting any kind of precedent. At an election the electorate vote for Members of Parliament. People not associated with a constituency have never appeared on a register. I see no reason why the amendment should cause their names to be put on the register in the future.
It was said that there would be great difficulty in determining the eligibility of British citizens. I was told that many Indians, people from Hong Kong and so on would be able to vote in the referendum. However, if it is not beyond the wit of the Lord President to devise a method of identifying people who are entitled to vote, it is time the Department was reorganised.

Mr. George Cunningham: It is.

Dr. Phipps: I cannot comment on my hon. Friend's interjection.

Mr. Cunningham: That is passing the buck.

Dr. Phipps: the entitlement is spelt out in the amendment and I support It. However, it is said that it is administratively impossible to organise a new system in the time. I find that an unacceptable argument. Within the time available to us it may be difficult to identify every person working overseas. There may be people who may be disfranchised, but the fact that a small percentage will be disfranchised is no reason for disfranchising all British citizens living overseas.

Mr. Adley: I shall not speak for too long, but this is the only intervention that I intend to make during the Committee stage. I should like to reassure the Lord President that I have no intention of filibustering or trying to delay the passage of this legislation to which, however much I disapprove, the House has given a Second Reading.
The hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) made his key point when he said that the Government have already given away the principle of the proposals now before the Committee in the way in which they have treated the Service vote. The Minister of State for Defence said that the anomalies may outweigh the advantages of the proposals

being made. That does not release us from our duty to devise a referendum which provides the maximum opportunity for the maximum number of our subjects to vote in the forthcoming referendum.
I should like to thank the Lord President for his courtesy in listening to the representations that have been made to him, but I understand that the Government are not looking favourably on this amendment, on the official Opposition amendment, or on the amendment proposed by the Liberal Party. I regret that. I suggest that there is a certain lack of determination to ensure that as many people as possible are given the opportunity to vote.
I should tell the Lord President, in case he is still not aware, that the feelings of our citizens overseas, particularly those who are working abroad, are running very high on this issue. All they have heard so far is what they and I consider to be a series of ill-argued and untenable excuses rather than reasons why this object which so many of us seek cannot be achieved.
In order to promote the official Opposition amendment, I should like to refer to the leading article in The Sunday Times of 20th April.
Towards overseas Britons, on the other hand, the Government is being less statesmanlike. It wants to admit none of them to the poll, and is putting pressure on its own MPs who think otherwise. No one knows how many extra voters are involved, and Mr. Short has put up every kind of administrative objection to offering enfranchisement to any of them. Admittedly, time is short. But the most practical amendment, proposed by the Conservatives, would limit the external vote to passport-holders with the right of abode here, who are not on foreign electoral registers. In practice this would confine the entitlement to Britons working temporarily abroad, rather than those who had left for good.
I hope that the hon. Member for Belper will agree that if his amendment is passed tonight, any subsequent alterations can be taken and made in the light of the Conservative Party's amendment.
A number of arguments have been adduced by the Lord President and others against this proposed course of action. I should like to list six main points which have been made against the proposals. The first is that these people could have registered. The right hon. Gentleman said that. Secondly, the expression "tax


dodgers" has been used. Thirdly, it has been said that irregularities may be created; fourthly, that it might create an unfair pro-European bias in the poll; fifthly, that it might cause delay; and, sixthly, that it will be difficult to arrange. I submit that none of those six points has been or will be substantiated.
On 14th April the Lord President said:
someone in my constituency who, because he lived in a slum tenement and had been moved during the currency of the register, would not have a vote."—[Official Report, 14th April 1975; Vol. 890, c. 25.]
That is not correct. It is true that if he moved from the right hon. Gentleman's constituency to another part of the city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne he may have to make a bus journey to go to vote, but he is not deprived of his right to vote. It is up to him whether he chooses to exercise his right. That speech by the Lord President caused a great deal of resentment amongst many people working abroad.
The second point concerns tax dodgers. I wish that somebody could define a tax dodger for me. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) was sitting there earlier muttering "Tax dodgers". Are these people criminals? Are we now saying that the morality of those who are entitled to vote is to be judged by the Government of the day? That is approaching a "1984" situation. There are no doubt many tax dodgers in the United Kingdom as well. Perhaps those who oppose these proposals should seek to weed out the so-called tax dodgers from people currently on the register.
The third point was that irregularities may be created. I do not know whether hon. Members saw the article in The Times earlier this week about the postal vote factory which had been discovered in Belfast. There may be irregularities if these proposals are accepted but that would not be unique. If I were certain that there would never be an irregularity at any election in this country, I should give a great deal more credence to those remarks. I do not think that I am alone in having been accosted after every General Election by constituents who had been deprived of the right to vote.
If it is good enough for the citizens of Eire to vote not only in their referendum but in ours, and that is not con-

sidered to be an irregularity, that argument cannot be sustained. Indeed, I received a letter from a gentleman called John Leeson who said:
I was for many years a constituent of Miss Joan Quennell in East Hampshire Division, and I am now working and resident in the Republic of Ireland.
Is he to be deprived of his vote when many people from Eire will have the chance to vote? That is one of the numerous and anomalous points which under the present arrangements will be repeated time and time again.
The fourth point concerns the supposed pro-European bias in the amendment. I am delighted to tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) was persuaded to put his name to the amendment in the early stages of its birth. I doubt whether he would be prepared to countenance anything which he felt would provide a pro-European bias in the referendum. The amendments are no more aiming to help our subjects living in France or Belgium than those living in Zambia or New Zealand provided—it is a big proviso—they have the right of abode.
In case hon. Members are not aware, I should point out that it is not difficult to define the right of abode.

Mr. English: Ha!

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman says "Ha!". I do not know how many passports he has looked at, but he will find that most of our citizens living abroad have taken good care to see that they have this right of abode marked in their passports. For instance, Mr. Leeson, to whom I referred, is one of the people about whom we are talking who has stamped in his passport,
Holder has the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
Since the passage of the Immigration Act 1971, it is not difficult to define who has the right of abode. If there are any places on this earth where they are experts in deciding who has or has not the right of abode in the United Kingdom, they are our embassies and consulates to which the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman) referred.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are tens


of thousands of people in the subcontinent, to take only one area, who are waiting—for another purpose, of course—for embassies and consulates to determine whether they have that right of abode? Does he want to set up another lot of queues for the embassies and consulates to decide whether people have the right of abode for the purpose of the vote?

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. The fact is that the people to whom he refers have not yet got the right of abode. They are waiting for it. They have applied for but not yet got it. Because they have not got the requisite remarks stamped in their passports, they would be automatically excluded because they do not have the right of abode under the 1971 Immigration Act.
8.0 p.m.
The fifth point concerns the delay. I accept what the Lord President says, that it would be unfortunate if there were a delay, but from the soundings I have taken there is no reason to suggest that if the Committee were to pass the amendment tonight instructions could not go out to our embassies and consulates to ensure that there is sufficient time to advise them on how to conduct the poll and to advertise it. The onus of being on the embassies' lists would rest on the shoulders of the British citizens seeking to vote. Thereafter there could be a two-week period in which a register could be prepared of those who were intending to vote.
I received what I think is the longest telegram I have ever received—

The Deputy Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will not read it out because we want to get on with our business.

Mr. Adley: I take note of what you say, Sir Myer. The telegram comes from the Chairman of the British Chamber of Commerce in France and was written after consultation with our Consulate-General there—

Mr. English: At a cocktail party, no doubt.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) makes stupid and sedentary interventions which

are out of keeping with the sincerity of those of us who are trying to protect the rights of British citizens working abroad.

Mr. English: Some of these ideas are thought up at cocktail parties, and the suggestion that the story the hon. Member is about to tell was thought up at a cocktail party at the British Chamber of Commerce in France has not been denied.

Mr. Adley: I was not aware that such a charge had been made, let alone denied. I do not have the opportunity of attending as many cocktail parties as the hon. Member who is no doubt a great expert on cocktail parties.
The idea of registering our people abroad to enable them to vote is not difficult and it can be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), the former consul for Phnom Penh, advises me that all that our embassies and consulates need is the necessary instructions from the Government.
If the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) wants any further clarification on the question of the right of abode I shall be happy to show him a letter I received from a British subject abroad. I hope that it will convince him that our embassies and consulates are able to decide which people have this right of abode.
What is the position of the Channel Islanders and the citizens of the Isle of Man? I have received a number of letters from such people. Will they have the right to vote? What about people serving with Voluntary Service Overseas? I have had representations from that organisation, and it tells me that it has 1,200 volunteers working abroad and that, as things stand, these people will be deprived of a vote.
If one accepts that there are no valid reasons in "managerial" terms for not accepting the amendment, its opponents have to cast around for other reasons. There was an article in the Guardian last Friday which indicated that Mr. Reg Underhill, of Transport House, had been circulating Labour Members of Parliament to the effect that this proposal could be contrary to the interests of the Labour Party at a future General Election. I am sure that Labour Members would not put


the interests of their party above the interests of their country, and I do not believe that this particular point needs to be argued. I hope that those of us taking an interest in the referendum, however much we may dislike it, are able occasionally to raise our eyes above the trough of party politics.
Many people abroad are extremely angry already and will be even more furious if the Government continue to oppose these proposals. Their anger will not be confined to words. It has been suggested to me today by two or three British subjects on the Continent that they would seriously consider taking the Government to the Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg if they are denied what they consider to be this fundamental human right. The European Court and Commission of Human Rights which were set up by the Council of Europe, and the setting up of which were ratified by the United Kingdom in 1951, allow not only member countries but persons, non-Government organisations and groups of individuals to put a complaint to the Commission on Human Rights. It would he appalling if the Government found themselves hauled up before that Commission for depriving United Kingdom citizens of their democratic rights. The Lord President must take this matter seriously because it would be unfortunate if the referendum were to become embroiled in a legal argument in this way.
The Government have said that they will follow the voice of the people. All that the three amendments seek is to provide as strong a voice as possible for those hon. Members who have said they will be bound by the referendum decision. It is hard to comprehend how the Government expect many people to take the referendum and the result seriously if they do not intend to take positive steps to enfranchise as many people as possible. The Government seem to be saying that we have to choose between getting it right or getting it soon, and it seems that the "soon" case has won.
That is the wrong attitude for the Government to take its embarking upon such an important piece of legislation. A number of people on the Continent are determined that if they are denied the right to vote they will organise a "private enterprise" ballot. Yesterday I met the

Director of the Netherlands-British Chamber of Commerce. His organisation has already prepared a letter which will be sent out at the end of this week if the House does not give our people abroad their due entitlement. Those Members of Parliament who want to listen to what the people are saying will perhaps be able to listen to the views of the disfranchised Britons in Europe and take note of what they are saying.
Referendum day for me was to have been a sham. I fear now that if the amendments are not accepted, instead of it becoming a day of sham it will become a day of shame.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I believe that I am the first speaker to oppose the amendment. I listened carefully to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), but nevertheless I shall oppose the amendment on two grounds. First, it is the wrong time to make this kind of change in our electoral law. Secondly, the change is based on a faulty and weak principle.
The reason why it is the wrong time to make a change is that once we have decided to refer the issue to the British people it is the wrong time to start debating precisely what we mean by "the British people", which it seems to me is what the debate has been about. There is the assumption that when we as politicians suggest before a General Election that the matter should be referred to the British people there is very little ambiguity in the minds of most people about precisely what that term means.
We know that what is meant by "the British people" has been a unique, slow, difficult process of development, refinement and extension. Of course, it is a process which most of the predecessors of the Tory Party have opposed whenever it was proposed to extend the franchise in the past. However, at least there is a working agreement on what is meant by "the British people". This is the wrong time to start opening up that whole issue in depth.

Dr. Phipps: Does not my hon. Friend agree that since this is a unique event, this is the only time that we shall be able to consider what we mean by "the British people".

Mr. Grocott: I shall deal later if I may with what I consider to be the weak argument that this is a unique event. I am suggesting that the idea of "the British people" is something that we have come to accept as meaning a particular registered franchise, and that that is something which by all means we should change, but this is not the time to change it.
It is a strange basis on which to operate in Parliament if, whenever a proposal comes forward, the debate degenerates—perhaps that is too unkind a word—to the basic principles, in this case the principles on which an election should be fought. It is almost as if a decision had been made by Parliament to develop a new kind of school and that we should find ourselves in Committee debating the whole notion of the school building system—what bricks, doors and windows should he used, and how the school should be constructed.
We know what we mean by "the franchise" and we should accept that. This is the wrong time at which to take a decision of this sort.
Perhaps the most important point I want to make is that this business is founded on a false principle. I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belper on these points. One of them in particular suggests that the reason why we should have this extension of the franchise in this instance is the importance of this issue and this decision. They may be right. It may be their view that this is a crucially important decision. Other people may have views on that point. However, I should have thought that in a democracy the people who decide what is a crucially important decision should be the electorate. They should be able to decide what is and what is not important.
I reject entirely the principle that there should be different bases of franchise for a referendum, for a General Election and for local elections. A good principle in a democracy is to keep our electoral machinery as simple and as intelligible as possible. To have completely or substantially different bases of voting for each different type of decision that the

electorate is called upon to make is a bad and weak principle.

Mr. R. G. Mitchell: If my hon. Friend is defining the British people as those who are registered as electors, why did he not oppose the previous amendment which has allowed a large number of people who are not in the electorate to vote?

Mr. Grocott: I accept that point and I would be one of those who would say that all alterations to the standard electoral methods are a mistake. That also applies to the original amendment. The simpler the issue is kept, the better It will be. As soon as concessions are made. the whole question of the franchise is thrown out into the open again.
I turn to the question of what is and what is not an important decision.

Mr. Leadbitter: A unique decision.

Mr. English: How does my hon. Friend know that it is unique?

Mr. Grocott: The question of what is or what is not a unique decision—

The Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member must not wait to hear what other hon. Members have to say from the neighbouring benches. Let him carry on with his speech.

Mr. Grocott: I like a little warmth to be engendered in the debate, and interjections add warmth to it. The public can decide what is a unique decision. If I was an expatriate Englishman—an Englishman living abroad—and I learnt one week that I had to decide on the Common Market and the next week that there was to be an election in my local authority, that one party was proposing to demolish the street in which I had lived all my life and that my family had to be rehoused elsewhere, I should regard that as an important decision and I should want to take part in the debate thereon. What happens to be important and what happens not to be important is something which is seriously debated among hon. Members and the public at large.
8.15 p.m.
I should like to deal with one final point about the irrevocable nature of the decision.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman referred to an incident which would doubtless be extremely important to his family. However, he would not be able to vote on it because he is talking about voting on an issue. Voting on an issue is totally different from electing someone else to vote on an issue on his behalf, which would be the case whether it was a municipal or a parliamentary election. This is a different matter altogether.

Mr. Grocott: Frequently elections at a local level can be about specific issues, although the executives of the decisions are the local councillors. That is a rather fine distinction which does not exist in the minds of the electorate and it is one that I would not accept.
I come to the point about the irrevocable nature of the decision that is being made. Time and again it has been said that this is an irrevocable decision, whereas in General Elections we do not make irrevocable decisions. I can think of all sorts of circumstances in which decisions at a General Election have resulted in irrevocable decisions being made by Governments. For example, there was the decision on the death penalty or the decision on destroying historical buildings. An even more important one where a decision was made, as a result of a vote at a General Election, which was to all intents and purposes irrevocable, was the decision in 1970 to join the Common Market. This was thought to be an irrevocable decision by the Parliament elected in 1970.
This is the wrong time for this decision about fundamental extensions to the franchise. Many of the claims which suggest that we should have different bases of franchise for different types of elections are weak and are founded on faulty principles.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth (Mr. Grocott) has brought the Committee back to what is the central question of the whole debate; namely, what is "the people" for the purposes of the reference to the people which this Bill proposes to make? In so doing, he echoes something which was said a good deal earlier by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman), who, with a great deal of sagacity,

observed that the validity of the outcome of what we are engaged on will, to some extent, depend upon the satisfaction that it is, indeed, the people, in the natural sense of the term, who have been consulted.
The meaning of "the sovereign people", the electorate, is one of the most fundamental parts of the law of any country. I do not think it is claiming too much to say that the definition of the franchise in the law ought to be altered only after grave deliberation and by due process in a context in which we are deliberately setting out to consider what the franchise ought to be and how it ought to be changed. We ought not, therefore, by a side wind in some other connection, however important, either to limit the franchise or to extend the franchise. If either of those large steps is to be taken, it ought to be taken with such deliberation that all who are involved in it have maturely considered what will be the consequences of our action.
There is no doubt what is the basic definition in our law of a person entitled to vote, of a member of the sovereign people. That definition is not "British national" or "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies". It is "British subject"—though I add immediately that of course there is another category equated with "British subject" for this purpose, and that is "citizen of the Republic of Ireland".
For my part, I believe, and I have long argued, that those definitions are obsolete and ought to be changed. I believe that there are many on both sides of the House of Commons who believe that we need a new definition of "citizenship", and that when we have it, it is to that that the fundamental right of the vote should be attached. But just because I happen to be of that opinion and just because I have often argued that it is an intolerable anomaly that citizens of the Republic of Ireland should have the franchise in the United Kingdom, I do not accept that we ought to alter that fundamental definition otherwise than as a part of a major reconsideration of our law of citizenship and of the franchise. We cannot do the thing, I repeat, by a side wind.
Of course, the category "British subject" is immensely extensive.

Mr. Adley: rose—

Mr. Powell: I dare say that I shall be dealing with the question put by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) as I go along.

Mr. George Cunningham: Do not bother.

Mr. Powell: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman has a question to put, we shall be able to settle it.
The definition "British subject", which is the fundamental category to which the franchise is attached. is of immense extension. It comprehends some 800 million human beings. I may have got it wrong to the extent of 100 million one way or the other, but it is an immensely extensive category. Therefore, we have limited that category in our law of franchise in one way, and in one way only—by residence, by the fact of residence established in a particular way on a particular date in the year. All those who are British subjects in the widest extension of the term enjoy the franchise in the United Kingdom by the one qualifying proviso: that they are resident on a particular defined date.
What is being proposed in nearly all these amendments is to throw over that concept altogether and to substitute, in effect, a different definition of citizenship and a different limitation of citizenship. Some of the amendments refer to "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies." It may be that it would be preferable so to limit the basic qualification of the franchise, but that is not our fundamental law at present. Others refer to British subjects who have the right of abode in this country. There seems to be the idea in some quarters of the Committee that this is an easy concept, one that is readily established. I assure you, Sir Myer, that hon. Members who so imagine are greatly mistaken.
The right of abode in this country applies, amongst other categories, to all those whose fathers were born in this country and to all those, being British subjects, whose mothers were born in this country. I have not exhausted the application of that qualification, right of abode, by what I have said, but it is quite sufficient to make my point, for "British subject with right of abode in this country", if that is to be our limitaton, will bring in millions—and we do not

know how many—in all parts of the world whose connection with the United Kingdom may be remote, may be virtually non-existent or may be extremely close.

Mr. Adley: The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, is presumably saying two things. He is saying, first, that the Foreign Office is quite hopelessly and totally incorrect in its definition as given in the Answer to which I referred earlier. Second, he is also speaking completely against the Government amendment to enfranchise the Forces.

Mr. Powell: I will deal with both points in the order in which they were raised. I think I am right in saying that the Foreign Office reply applied to British passport holders. British passport holders are a small category among British subjects.

Mr. Adley: I must put the facts on record. The Question I asked and which was answered by the Foreign Office refers to
British passport holders currently living abroad who have the right of abode in the United Kingdom as defined in the Immigration Act 1971."—[Official Report, 17th April 1975: Vol. 890, c. 158.]

Mr. Powell: Just so, British passport holders. Part of my point is that the franchise is not concerned with the holding of a British passport and that it is a most radical alteration of the whole concept of the franchise to substitute for the category of British subject qualified by residence the holding of a British passport—a very much more limited category not precisely coincident even with "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies."
I take the other point to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. In the amendment which the Committee has made we have not altered the franchise. We have not altered the entitlement to vote. We have facilitated the exercise of that right by those who already possess it under existing law. What will happen under any of these amendments is that we shall alter the franchise in a way of which we cannot foresee the outlines or the consequences and of which the definition in thousands of cases must necessarily be a matter of doubt.

Mr. Adley: rose—

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington perhaps


wonders why it will be a matter of doubt. I will explain. An individual may walk into a consulate in India and say "I have a right of abode in the United Kingdom because my father was born in the United Kingdom." Maybe he has that right of abode. But before he could exercise that right by taking up residence in the United Kingdom a great deal would need to be done to establish the fact and circumstances of the birth of his father in the United Kingdom.
This would have to be carried out, if we are taking seriously what we are endeavouring to enact, in thousands of cases. There has been talk about anomalies and discrimination. If that were not done, and it could not be done and everyone realises that, we should have brought into contempt and discredit our electoral law by making it clear that we had not even a proper means of deciding who was entitled to exercise the franchise and, incidentally, to exercise the franchise in what has been claimed to be a uniquely important matter.

Mr. Adley: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to make a mockery of this. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The person going into the embassy or consulate in India will have to be able to prove immediately his right of abode in the United Kingdom. If he does not have the proof it will be so obviously clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense"] Hon. Members are not familiar with the facts. Secondly, if these millions of people in India have lived there for a long time they will be on the register, and again they will be disqualified under the terms of the amendment.

Mr. Powell: There is such abundant material for proving the absurd impracticability of these amendments that one is almost overwhelmed by it. The hon. Member has produced more. Someone must walk into a consulate and say "I hereby affirm that I am not entitled to be on the electoral register in any other country." Let me take an example which can easily exist. A child may be born of British parents in Chile and may be resident in France. That person may inquire whether under one of these new-fangled amendments he is to be entitled to the franchise in the United

Kingdom on this unique occasion. The question is asked—and he must certify on his honour, under penalty presumably—"Are you entitled to be on the electoral register in any other country?"
8.30 p.m.
It is not sufficient for that person to have a vague idea that 20 or 40 years ago he was liable to be conscripted in Chile. He has to know whether, since the fall of Allende, there has been a change in the electoral law of Chile—[Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members laugh. This is a real and practical possibility, and it is thrust at us by the terms of the amendment which it is proposed to make. The very consideration of the chaos and contempt into which we should bring our process of legislation if we were to make this change.
There is only one safe ground on which we can stand. There is only one action we can take which will save us, against all corners, from the charge of unreasonable discrimination, and that is to say that the privilege of voting for the purpose of this referendum is the same as that at which we have arrived by a long process and which is embodied in our electoral law. That may be open to criticism, and it may be changed in the future, but one thing is certain: we cannot without confusion or disgrace change it here and now in this context.

[Sir STEPHEN MCADDEN in the Chair]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): On a number of occasions I have told the House that in preparing the Referendum Bill we thought it important to keep as close as possible to our normal tried and trusted electoral arrangements, and that includes the definition of the electorate. We felt this because we believe that it is essential to ensure the credibility and acceptance of the result. I am sure that the Committee wants the widest possible acceptance of the result, whatever it is.
Nevertheless, during the Second Reading debate a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House argued for an extension of the franchise to some or all British people overseas. In replying to that debate my hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out some of the practical difficulties involved, and I shall say a little about these in a moment.
Let me first assure the Committee that since the Second Reading debate we have carried out a careful re-examination of this matter. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) for the help he gave me and the long discussions we had on the matter.
Any scheme raises problems of principle, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has just said, as well as practicability. There is, first, the difficulty of trying to devise a scheme that differentiates between those for whom there was most sympathy on Second Reading, namely, the engineer working on a construction project in the Middle East and the business man promoting United Kingdom exports—many of whom will have proxy votes anyhow—and at the other end of the spectrum those who have chosen to escape the obligations, especially the tax obligations, of United Kingdom citizenship by taking up residence abroad. Is it just and equitable that people who have gone to live abroad to avoid their obligations as citizens should have a vote? I do not think it is. That is the first basic problem—to differentiate between the worthy people on the one hand and the second group of people to whom I have referred on the other hand.
In our study over the last week we established that it would be possible to construct a scheme under which those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who would be outside the United Kingdom on 5th June would be able to vote. The reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) is that it would probably still be possible to do it in the time, though in a very makeshift way. But I must be honest and say that I think it could still be done.
In working out this scheme we felt that there were five minimum conditions and we could not accept anything else. The first was that the right of abode, within the meaning of Section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971, had been established and stamped in the passport. This is also suggested as a qualification in the official Opposition amendment.
The second condition was that people were not on a current parliamentary

election register in the United Kingdom The third condition was that they or their spouses had resided at some time In the United Kingdom. The fourth condition was that their occupation, service or employment or that of their spouses was abroad. The fifth and final condition—a vital assurance of continuing connection with this country—was that they declared an intention to return to reside in the United Kingdom.
We felt that those five conditions were the absolute minimum. Hon. Members will realise that only the first of those five conditions could be verified in practice by looking at the passport. I am sure that some hon. Members would feel some doubt about using even the first, about which the right hon. Member has been speaking—that is, the right of abode qualification. If hon. Members will think back to the debates on the Bill in 1971, they will remember how difficult and controversial the debate on patriality was. So I know that a great many hon. Members would feel great doubt about accepting even the first condition.
The other four conditions cannot be checked at all. They would be covered, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said, by a simple declaration of facts and intentions. It would be impossible to check any of those four conditions in the time. So the first problem is the impossibility of checking four out of five conditions and the danger of abuse which would flow from this.
However, if these conditions were met, overseas voters could attend to vote at about 265 high commissions, embassies and consulates throughout the world which have the facilities and the trained United Kingdom staff to cope with the procedure. The very small number of posts—I was shocked by the smallness of the number taken over the whole world—itself creates anomalies. People might have to travel some considerable distance to vote. Ironically, it would be the hardworking business man who would be much less likely to make the trip than the lotus eater who lives around the Mediterranean.
The five conditions I have mentioned, taken together, formed the fairest scheme that could be devised, and yet they still left a number of very serious loopholes and inequities and they created at least


as many anomalies as the scheme was designed to remove.

Sir Raymond Cower: Does the Lord President recall that the point has been made in the past and has been expressed at one or two Speaker's Conferences that in some of these cases a certificate could be accepted from an organisation such as the British Council, or indeed the BBC, which has temporarily in its employ abroad British citizens who might not be on a register here? There would not be any doubt about that. The Lord President will be well acquainted with people who are posted by the British Council or by the BBC to foreign countries.

Mr. Short: British Council employees can vote already. I shall say something about the other point in a few moments.
I was saying that the five conditions, taken together, were the fairest scheme that we could devise and yet they still left a number of serious loopholes and certainly created as many anomalies as the scheme itself was designed to remove.
Let me mention some more. I have already mentioned that the ability to vote would depend on access to a suitable post, so that distance, time and money to make the journey and not merit would be a determining practical criterion. Secondly, the declarations—four of them—would be open to abuse, since even if a false statement were uncovered there would be no prosecution for this offence unless the individual returned to this country at some future date, and a great many people will not return to this country at any time.

Dr. Phipps: This is the second or third time that my right hon. Friend has made this point. What is his justification for expecting widespread abuse of a perfectly simple process in which people are asked to sign a declaration?

Mr. Short: There are tens of thousands of people—I do not know how many—who would simply be able to turn up under this scheme at a post abroad, sign a declaration and get a vote. In our electoral law we must be able to check the qualifications for inclusion in the franchise. There would be no check of any kind here.
Thirdly, those living overseas who had returned to this country on leave during the referendum would not be able to vote, nor would, for example, the doctor who had been working in Central Africa and who had returned to this country since last October.
Fourthly, any register in the United Kingdom excludes by accident—I referred in an earlier debate to the person in my constituency—up to 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. of the electorate in every election. The million or more people who are entitled to vote in the United Kingdom but who are not registered would not be able to vote while an unknown total of British people overseas, many of whom have turned their backs on this country and who have no intention of returning, people without any entitlement to vote, would be enfranchised by the amendments.
I was asked about the offshore islands. Arrangements would have to be made for United Kingdom citizens who are resident in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, who are excluded from our parliamentary register, to vote there. However, the citizens of those islands who are not citizens of the United Kingdom would not be able to vote. It is clear from the marked differences between the various amendments on this topic how difficult it would be to find an agreed solution to the practical problems.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and other hon. Members want the extension of the franchise limited to people overseas
in an official or business capacity.
A similar qualification is one of the five which we devised. If the lotus eaters I have talked about—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are many thousands of them. If the lotus eaters turned up at the embassy in Madrid and claimed to be writers or consultants it would be impossible to check in the time available.
The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) by his amendment and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) would confine the extension to residents of other Community countries. That would be unjust to, for example, the doctor in Kenya, the engineer in Paraguay or many others whose service outside the Cornmunity is just as worthy as the service of officials working in the Community in


Brussels. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) by his amendment would confine it to those working for international organisations or other Governments.
The official Opposition's amendment would deny a vote to those overseas who have the right to vote in any other country. However, entitlement to vote in Australia or New Zealand is not a matter of personal choice. It is a matter of residence qualification. It is certainly in itself no test of the weakness or strength of somebody's attachment to the United Kingdom. It would rule out the vast majority of British people living in Australia and New Zealand.
I have already mentioned my doubts about the "right of abode" qualification suggested by the Opposition's amendment. This is not shown in passports issued before 1971, which are probably the majority. Those holding such passports would have to turn up at the embassy or the post and establish this right when they went to vote. That would involve documentary proof, such as birth certificates or the ability to prove five years' residence in this country. It might not be easy for those possessing the right to prove it in time, and it would place an intolerable additional burden on the posts.
Although the Committee, I hope, accepts that any scheme we could produce would be anomalous and frequently unjust in its differentiations between groups, and open to the possibility of considerable abuse, even these problems are not the major reason why I ask the Committee to reject the amendments. It is fundamental to our electoral system that entitlement to vote rests upon a residence qualification and that the electoral register showing those entitled should be open to challenge by anyone.
Service voters are entitled to vote. The Government amendment which we passed earlier simply makes it easier for them to do so. That is the difference between the Service voters and those with whom the amendments are concerned. In the case of the Service voter we were discussing an extension of the facility to vote. Here we are discussing an extension of the entitlement to vote, an extension of the franchise.
8.45 p.m.
People overseas who are on the register but who are overseas because of their occupation, service or employment are entitled, with their wives or husbands to a proxy vote. I hope that they will all exercise that right. But if the Committee accepts the amendments, it will be enfranchising an unknown number of people, some of whom are genuinely attached to this country and are pursuing its interests abroad, but many of whom have chosen to live abroad merely to avoid their obligations as citizens in this country, participating in the country's life and its future. I do not know how many such people there are, but there are many of them at one end of the spectrum.

Sir M. Havers: The right hon. Gentleman has told the Committee many times of the tens of thousands of lotus eaters. He says again that there are many of them. When these various categories were considered, an estimate must have been made of their numbers. I do not expect the answer in figures, but can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the percentage of the lotus eaters, the tax avoiders, so that we can see how many genuine people there are who should be entitled to vote? I believe that there are many of them.

Mr. Short: I cannot give those figures, but, of course, there are many of them, and there are many genuine people as well. Of the genuine people, however, a large number already have the vote and can exercise it because they are on a register in this country. They can vote by proxy.
I support what the right hon. Member for Down, South said. Such dramatic changes in our principles of entitlement to vote as are proposed in the amendment should be avoided in the referendum. Such decisions should not be taken in such an arbitrary way when they involve undermining so many of our traditional safeguards.
The Committee should be in no doubt that if the amendment is carried and the referendum result is close, the vulnerability of the scheme to abuse and its anomalies will undermine confidence in the result and acceptance of the result. For those reasons I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. John Lee: I accept my right hon. Friends argument on the substance of the matter. If, however, it is intended that there should be no departure from the principle of the franchise, why has it been decided that Peers should be entitled to vote?

Mr. Short: Peers are excluded from voting in a General Election because they are members of one element in Parliament, but they vote in the local elections. They are on the local government register. There is, therefore, no extension of the franchise there.

Mr. Goodhart: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has clearly shown that there are considerable problems in the amendments, that additional thought may have to be given to them and that they may have to be reworded. But I still believe that the principle put forward by the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) is worthy of consideration and passage by the Committee.
The Leader of the House spent a great deal of time talking about anomalies, but the situation which he envisages contains many anomalies and the passage of the last series of amendments will create still further anomalies. I have in my hand a letter from a legal adviser to the EEC who is at present advising the EEC at the Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea. He was asked to go to the EEC to represent this country. He will not be entitled to vote in the coming referendum, but because of the amendments another legal adviser who is a colonel serving in SHAPE down the road, will be entitled to vote.
It is an extraordinary situation that the Government, who have never been a friend of the Forces and on every occasion seek to cut down our defences, should extend the facility to vote to tank drivers, those who fly nuclear bombers, those who serve in Polaris submarines and even those who fight in wars in the neighbourhood of the Persian Gulf but should deny the right to vote to people who are serving in hospitals in Europe and who work officially in the headquarters of the European Commission, in the Council of Europe and in the European business community.
Clearly, there will have to be another look at the wording of the amendment at another stage or in another place. It is extraordinary that the Government should extend the facility of the vote to the Services and deny it to those who are officially serving the Government abroad in other capacities.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has done a common thing. He listened intently to all the practical objections which were put forward so cogently by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and proceeded to sweep them aside, entirely ignore them and say that there must be a way round those practical objections.
I can speak briefly because most of what I wanted to say has been said by the right hon. Member for Down, South. The House of Commons is in a situation which is, unfortunately, not infrequently met. Through its negligence over the years it has reached a position from which it cannot retrieve itself in a short period of time. The House of Commons has neglected the business of citizenship law for the last several decades, and as a result we simply cannot in a matter of a month or two change the franchise on to a basis which will stand up and be defensible or even definable.
The right hon. Gentleman estimated that the number of British subjects in the world would be about 800 million. I would put the number at more than 1 billion. We must take into account the entire populations of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Jamaica, Trinidad, Guyana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Rhodesia, Canada, Australia. New Zealand and many more that I cannot remember. The entire populations of all those countries add up to about one quarter of the world's population. All those people are entitled to vote in British elections on the ground of nationality.

Sir R. Gower: No.

Mr. Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman questions whether one quarter of the world's population is entitled, on the ground of nationality, to vote in British elections I should be grateful if he will explain his point to the Committee. There is, of course, the important qualification


that such people must be resident in this country on the previous October.

Sir R. Gower: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the majority of the people to whom he refers have never been near these islands. He is exaggerating wildly.

Mr. Cunningham: The difficulty is that the essence of what is proposed in the amendments is to my mind totally acceptable. We want citizens of this country—and we do not have such a thing as citizenship—to be able to vote in a referendum. The House should have thought of this matter some time ago. It should have created citizenship. The vote should attach, as the right hon. Gentleman said, not to the status of a British subject, which is a complete anachronism, but to the status of citizenship.
The citizenship which most of us possess is citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. There are millions of people throughout the world who possess precisely the same legal citizenship as we possess. Most of them have never been near this country and will never come near it. I think all Members would agree that they do not want such people to vote in elections. Therefore, we have the practical difficulty of distinguishing, for example, between a British business man in Hong Kong, who we would want in principle to be able to vote in the referendum, and the ordinary Hong Kong indigenous resident, who we would not want to be able to vote but who possesses precisely the same legal citizenship as the British business man. There is the practical difficulty.

Mr. Michael Marshall: The official Opposition amendment suggests that we should not allow the vote to those who have the vote in any other country. That gets round the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman puts forward.

Mr. Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the matter is that easy I invite him to think about it again. It seems that some hon. Members have the idea that every country runs its electoral affairs in the same way as ourselves. They believe that there is a register in every country which is brought up to date every year and that it is only necessary to consult the register to see whether

someone is entitled to vote. I do not know whether it is still the position in Canada but I know that some years ago the Canadians drew up a register for an election when they knew that an election was coming. That is why there was a long delay between the announcement of an election and the actual election. To determine whether a resident in Canada is entitled to a vote in Canada is not as simple as is the issue in the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the greater difficulties which would apply in many other countries but I am invited to address myself to the conditions which are provided for in some of the amendments. First, I turn to the Liberal amendment, Amendment No. 14. We all know that the provisions for pouring funds into the purses of Opposition Parties have not yet got under way and that the Liberal Party did not have a chance to spend a lot of public money in doing its homework, but it is too bad that a party should put into an amendment—and amendments can become part of our statute law—the term "British citizens".
9.0 p.m.
The phrase "British citizens" features in the Liberal amendment. There ain't such a thing as "British citizens"[Interruption.] I know that there ought to be, but there is not. Do the Liberals mean "British subjects "or" United Kingdom citizens". They did not know, so they put in the phrase "British citizens". That is the sort of thinking that has gone into the preparation of some of these amendments.
Another amendment uses the term "British national". That has been legally defined, but it includes a group that is much more extensive than those included within the definition of United Kingdom citizen.
The definition used in the official Opposition's amendment, Amendment No. 22, of "British subject", but with the disqualification of no right to vote elsewhere, is subject to the objections I have put forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bel-per (Mr. MacFarquhar) used the definition of "British passport holder", which has been objected to on cogent grounds. The hon. and learned Member for Wim-


bledon (Sir M. Havers) gave the game away when he said that he could not define this elephant, but would recognise one when it walked into a polling station.
If we are to extend the vote, we must have a definition which everybody can comprehend and enforce. What the hon. and learned Gentleman said at the end of his remarks, with a rather tongue-in-cheek expression, was that he would leave the matter to the Lord President. In other words, the Government could come up with something which would define precisely who was to be given the franchise.

Sir R. Gower: If the hon. Gentleman adduces all these objections to the official amendment, will he support another amendment in similar terms, possibly tabled by the Government, which would afford protection to a more limited number, namely, those born in the United Kingdom—in other words, the same category as that listed in the Opposition amendment, but limited to those born here?

Mr. Cunningham: Writing statutes is quite a complex process and it cannot be tossed backwards and forwards across the Chamber. Citizenship of the United Kingdom is not limited to people born in this country. If my son is born abroad, he is a subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The difficulty is to find an enforceable and clear definition.
I am suggesting that on grounds of nationality there is no definition which is both logical and clearly definable and, therefore, enforceable. If one then adopts a test of "national", which is too extensive, whether by taking "British subject" or "citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies", one has to have an auxiliary definition to restrict that. Again, in these amendments a number of botching attempts are made to do this. There is the right of abode—but enough has been said about that. There is the proposal in one amendment that the Government should be given carte blanche to extend citizenship to any group which they could successfully define and to which it is sensible to have extended it.
Then there is the proposal that it should be extended to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are abroad in an official or business capacity. The person going into the consulate will

have to satisfy the consul that he is in that country in either a business or an official capacity. I do not know whether that applies to a trade union capacity. Perhaps a trade union capacity ranks as a business capacity or an official capacity. The consul will have to decide these matters while 2,500 applicants are queueing up outside the door.
The Liberals have adopted the most liberal arrangement for dealing with this situation. They say that they want to give it to any British subject who is abroad for such-and-such reasons or for any reason is absent from the United Kingdom. I should have thought that would probably bring in about 800 million people throughout the world. That would call in question whether the referendum was a true test of opinion of those who can reasonably be entitled to a vote in it.
I am glad that the Government have at last taken seriously the matter of citizenship legislation. They announced a few weeks ago that they hoped in the summer to produce citizenship proposals for this country. When that legislation is passed it will be reasonable to give citizens, even when they are abroad, the right to vote in referenda. Although I think that my hon. Friend's idea is acceptable and attractive, I regret that I feel we must stick to the current franchise.

Mr. Macmillan: I thought that the Lord President's arguments were thin and shabby. He spent some time saying that the good boys should have the vote while the bad boys should not, basing his argument on the English, the Scots, the Irish and the Welsh who are non-resident of the United Kingdom or who are away for long or short periods. He said that their right to vote should depend on their worthiness and on their reasons, good or bad, for being outside the United Kingdom. I think that he referred to people who were dodging their citizenship obligations. In view of the fact that the Government have not yet defined citizenship, it is an odd phrase for him to use.
At ordinary elections a residence qualification has always been fundamental. It has always been fundamental to the election of a representative for a parliamentary or local authority constituency. However, once we start the


game of direct democracy which a referendum represents we are in a different league. The Government have started a game without having though out the rules, and now rejects improvements.
I accept the argument that it is different for Service men and women to have the vote wherever they may be. They have established a right to vote. It is now being made easier for them to exercise that right. However, it is a false argument to say that an attempt to extend that system to civilians living abroad is extending the franchise. It is not an actual extension of the franchise, although it may be a potential extension if it leads to changes in elections too.
The present definition of British subjects, without any residential qualification, is broad. We need a definition of citizenship. Those who support the concept of referenda should have thought this through before they expressed their support. People living in the modern world are abroad a great deal. However, if they miss voting at a General Election and return to this country they do not go unrepresented, since they have a representative in the House wherever they may live when they return to the United Kingdom. The fact that they did not vote for him does not deprive them of their voice in a representative democracy. The duty of a Member of Parliament is to represent all his constituents—those who voted for him, those who voted against him, and those who come to live in his constituency between elections.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Government of which he was a member imposed a referendum upon Northern Ireland for the purpose of deciding whether its people wished to remain part of the United Kingdom. Will he recall to the Committee what the franchise was on which that referendum was conducted?

Mr. Macmillan: That was a different situation. Under emergency legislation we had abolished and taken over for the time being the functions of Stormont. That created an entirely different situation.

Mr. Powell: What was the franchise?

Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman asks me what the franchise was. I cannot remember.

Mr. Powell: I can help the right hon. Gentleman. It was exactly the same franchise as that which had been used for electing the Stormont Assembly and local government.

Mr. Macmillan: That was a point which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may have moved at that time. No doubt it is a good argument in relation to Northern Ireland now, but it would have been better if he had used it then.

Mr. Powell: I voted against the referendum.

Mr. Macmillan: I was making the point that a person is not disfranchised and unrepresented because he is unable to vote abroad. It may be tiresome and awkward, but it does not leave him without a Member of Parliament to represent him. In a referendum, which is a once-for-all decision on a specific issue, it is much more important to cover all persons who are entitled to vote, wherever they may be, because that is a decision that we are asking people to make for themselves rather than allow, as I still maintain we should have done, their parliamentary representatives to make it on their behalf.
The Leader of the House and the Government have shown great frivolity and contempt, for, in all the time that they have had to think about this referendum, they have produced such a small and mean measure. They have not thought how to get proper representation in what they have called "this unique adventure".

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I will be brief, because I realise that the Government want the vote as soon as they can get it.
I will come straight to the point—the electorate of the United Kingdom. For many years the experience of most hon. Members has been that quite a number of people who have been on the electoral register have been disqualified from voting year after year because they happened to take their holidays when election day fell. Even though many of us, with our constituents and friends, have thought it only justice if the holiday maker could—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I think he is anticipating the next


amendment, which deals with holidays, not this one.

Mr. Spriggs: I will deal with the amendments now before the Committee. I suggested that it is odd that people who reside abroad and hold British passports, who probably have not worried themselves one jot about the last few General Elections and many municipal elections, should show an interest in the referendum. Anyone claiming the right to vote should at least have a qualification, and people who do not have a residential qualification should not be allowed to vote in the referendum.
If the amendment in the name of my non. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) and Amendment No. 22 are forced through they will create many problems for future elections. If the amendments are accepted the Committee will not only do great damage to the electoral machinery as it has been operated over many years but the electors will have every right to claim that hon. and right hon. Members have been unfair on this issue.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Gow: I rise to speak in support of Amendment No. 16 which stands on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) and myself. I listened with close attention to the speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I well understand the argument which he advanced that, if changes are to be made in the franchise, they should be made root and branch and after the most careful consideration of all the implications.
Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and I have tabled the amendment because we think it right on this occasion to draw attention to the anomaly which we believe exists in that citizens of the Republic of Ireland living in this country are entitled to vote in our referendum even though they were able to vote in the Republic's referendum before that country became a member of the EEC.
This anomaly arises from Section 1(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1949. It has been recognised as an anomaly by all hon. Members. It grew up as a result of the historical connection between the United Kingdom and what is

now the Republic of Ireland, but we can see no justification for giving to one class of foreign citizen the right to vote in this referendum while denying it to every other class.
We put down the amendment to draw the attention of the Lord President and the Committee to the anomaly and in the hope of extracting from the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking on this point.

Mr. English: Pro-Market Members who support this amendment are in an extremely anomalous position. I do not include in that situation the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) because his point was rather different. However, the main point of this group of amendments is to extend the franchise to British subjects resident overseas. I thoroughly support my right hon. Friend the Lord President in resisting them.
I regretted the extension proposed by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence. On the same principle that I regretted that extension, I fully support my right hon. Friend's opposition to this amendment. What worries me is that convinced Europeans support the amendment rather than the proposals of the European Commission itself, or the proposals of the Council of Ministers. That worries me but I am not surprised at it, especially having heard a former Minister of Agriculture who did not know about the butter subsidy shortly after we joined the Community, and since I discovered that the Lord President of the Council in the previous Conservative Government denied the existence of the subsidy or its application to Britain even though we were in the Community. Since then I have never been surprised at the lack of knowledge of some convinced Europeans on proposals being made in Brussels.
Therefore, in the context of this debate I wish to quote from one of the Commission documents, COM (74) 2250, which was passed in Brussels on 18th December 1974. That was the:
Action programme in favour of migrant workers and their families.
Section III relates to
Civic and political rights.
Other parts of the document deal with migrant workers from third countries, but this section relates to migrant workers


who are citizens of one or other of the member States but who have migrated to another member State. Therefore, it is exactly in point with this amendment. I do not intend to quote the whole section but the most relevant paragraph states:
The objective to be attained is the granting to migrants, at the latest by 1980, of full participation in local elections according to conditions to be defined relating in particular to the qualifying period of residence.
"Local" in that context does not mean local authority elections in our context. It means local in the context of the Common Market, for example, parliamentary elections in Britain as distinct from elections to the European Assembly, which will start to take place in 1978.
The principle that the Commission has adopted, following up a directive from the Council that it should consider the matter, is that people should be granted the franchise in terms of their place of residence, that it would be foolish to provide for, for example, a Frenchman living in London to vote in Nice or for an Englishman living in Brussels to vote in some part of the United Kingdom, but that it would be more sensible to provide for them to vote where they live and are resident. It is the exact opposite of the principle proposed in the amendment. If the amendment were carried, it would have the result of complicating the future European electoral law were we to stay in the European Community.
The whole point about the Commission's proposal is that it was one that the Commission felt should be adopted by all nine member States because the principal provisions of European electoral law in those nine States provide for people voting by residence. It would be immensely complicated if we did it in any other way. The Commission followed the principle of the existing electoral laws, not anticipating—and who would?—that anyone would wish to change the existing electoral laws in such a way as is proposed by the amendment.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that we are voting for a referendum and not for the election of various levels of government in the country? Does he suppose that the legislation we shall eventually pass as a result of these proceedings will determine the law for General Elections

in this country? He is mistaken if he does.

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman was not here when we discussed the previous amendment. We discussed it in great detail earlier this afternoon. I mentioned Service men, overseas residents and holiday voters when I spoke on that amendment and referred to this amendment and the next one. When I said that the precedents would be reflected in electoral law—the hon. Gentleman will find this in Hansard tomorrow—I said that hon. Gentlemen opposite would be advocating that those overseas and holiday voters should eventually have the vote in General Elections. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, the only reason why I omitted it at this stage is that it is late at night and this has already been raised in an earlier discussion when the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) took part in the debate. Therefore, I did not wish to weary the Committee by taking it through the argument again.
I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members agreed with me at the time and that he is the odd man out in this context. Almost every hon. Member who participated in that discussion agreed that it would reflect into future electoral law and they approved the fact that it was likely that on future occasions Service men, for example, would be able to vote. However, if the hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not think that they should vote at General Elections, no doubt he will discuss that on a future occasion.
Most people believe that the franchise is something that is not restricted merely to General Elections or referenda, that voters are voters whatever they are decided by law to be, and that what we decide here today is bound to have its repercussions on the electoral law for General Elections. In any case the hon. Gentleman's argument is no argument at all against the point I was making about the European Commission's proposals, because although referenda are unique here they are not unique in Europe. When the Commission talks about giving voting rights to people, it is not talking about elections. It is talking about voting rights for all the issues on which people vote. In many European countries—France, for example, in the case of British admission


to the Community—referenda are, if not frequent, at least not unique. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's argument is not related to the Commission's document from which I was quoting.
The point I am making is that pro-Marketeers who are advocating the amendment—I recognise that not necessarily all those who are advocating the amendment are pro-Marketeers—are deliberately trying to make a change in electoral law which will have its repercussions not only, or probably, upon our English electoral law but will cause difficulties in the implementation of one of the Brussels directives of which, presumably, they approve.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: Is there such a thing as "English" electoral law?

Mr. English: Oddly enough, there is a distinction between English and Scottish electoral law, and I am surprised that a Scottish National Member should not know that. This matter will arise on a subsequent amendment relating solely to Scotland that is to be moved by my right hon. Friend the Lord President, when the hon. Gentleman will realise that there is a distinction between the two. Furthermore, I hope he will realise that there is such a thing as Northern Ireland electoral law too, which is quite different again.
The point at issue is the very simple one that we are complicating not only our electoral law but also the European proposals. I do not mind that because I believe that the referendum will take us out of the Common Market. But any hon. Member who wants to keep us in the Common Market is in an extremely inconsistent position in supporting the amendment because he is saying that we should make a change that is directly contrary to the Brussels recommendation. I am surprised—indeed, almost disheartened—by hon. Members' inattention to Community documents and by the fact that pro-Marketeers have not looked this up, taken it to heart and applied it to the circumstances of their amendment.

Mr. Michael Marshall: The proceedings of the Committee so far have reinforced the fears that many of us had when the whole question of a referendum was mooted. We are seeing once again a field day, if not for the lawyers, at

least for the barrack-room lawyers. The range of argument on this group of amendments is particularly hard to take for those of us who feel that the referendum is a bogus issue and, as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said on Second Reading,a squalid device. Other hon. Members on the Government benches have pointed to it as a flagrant abrogation of parliamentary sovereignty. In that context, everything that has happened today can only reinforce comments of that kind.
However, I want to turn briefly to Amendments Nos. 17, 19 and 39, standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and myself. I believe that these focus on both of the amendments in the names of Labour Members and those emanating from the Opposition Front Bench, in trying to bring some semblance of order into what is otherwise a situation of chaos.
I have some sympathy for the Lord President. Anyone who has seen him and his hon. Friend the Minister of State coping over the last few weeks must recognise that they are having to clear up the mess that the Prime Minister has thrust upon them. I do not expect them to leap up and agree wholeheartedly with me but anyone analysing the situation dispassionately must see that this is the fact. While I have great sympathy with them in their attempt to put forward some spatchcock of a device which will enable the Government to get off the hook it behoves the Government to approach this matter constructively and at least to make the best of a bad job.
9.30 p.m.
Nothing that has been said tonight in any way suggests that that is what will happen if these amendments are rejected. What is it we are trying to achieve? It is being argued that we shall have all kinds of difficulties about the lotus eaters and that we will have problems which will carry over into future General Elections. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) argued this. Quite frankly, I do not accept that view. If we are to have the referendum it will be a unique event. General Elections are entirely different, and there is no question of opening up voting processes which could apply to future General Elections
The initiative must rest with the Government. It is not good enough to suggest that there is no time available, as the Lord President did. If we are to make a stab at this device we should try to show willing. This is where I do not think the Government have gone far enough. We have had the assurance about Service voters. We have seen some attempt to widen the franchise for this occasion. But proposals now before us which would effectively allow the vote to go more widely to cover British citizens overseas for purposes very much in the interests of this country are proposals which it ought not to be beyond the wit of this Committee to encompass in legislation.
All the arguments that have been advanced by the barrack-room lawyers do not take into account the abilities of those in our consulates and embassies overseas. People who consult our representatives in those posts will find that they have a considerable degree of intelligence. I do not believe that it is expecting too much of them to use discretion in assessing what is a reasonable pattern of British voters for this unique occasion. It is something at which the consular sections are particularly skilled. To become tied up in knots about lotus eaters and so on is, in a way, to ignore what the exercise is about. Surely it is that we are seeking, if we must have the referendum, to get the broadest possible British vote on the future of this country in the EEC. That is a unique event.
If that is accepted, surely the Lord President does not imagine that there will be thousands of those whom he described as having turned their backs on the country fighting to get into our consular sections to make their views known. If there are such people I do not believe that they will be particularly fussed about the referendum. We should respect and try to encourage initiative from those who feel strongly on this issue.
Out of the many representations I have received on this subject let me quote that of someone who is serving as a senior official in the British Steel Corporation's Paris office, Mr. Richard Barber. He has recently written to me in moving terms about the way in which he undertook to work on a two-year minimum contract for the corporation as part of its activities

within the EEC. He now finds that he is not to be allowed to put forward his view on this great issue, something on which he clearly has first-hand knowledge.
How can we justify our inability to encompass this type of voter? This must be a feeling shared on all sides of the Committee. There is something wrong with the way in which we tackle our legislation if on an issue as unique as this we cannot embrace such people.
The initiative rests with the Government. They must show willing and meet the views of those who have put their names to Amendment No. 101 or perhaps even accept the amendment proposed by my Front Bench. These are minimum requirements. If the Government show themselves insensitive to what is proposed they will perpetuate the whole image of the Bill as a dog's breakfast from which we are being given very little chance to pick out the bones and make something that will lead people to feel that the exercise is not as spurious and as bogus as it clearly is in so many ways.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: It is some time since I have been so undecided about how to vote as I am on this amendment. The practicalities of the situation lead me to support the Government, because the last thing that I want to do is to delay the referendum. The sooner we get the damned thing out of the way the better it will be for the House of Commons and for the country as a whole. On the other hand, a basic sense of fair play tells me to vote against the Government.
I accept the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) that this is a unique situation and a unique vote which will decide important issues for this country for a long time to come. Why should British people who happen to be working abroad or who are on holiday there be disfranchised from taking part in arriving at a major decision for this country?
There is a case for saying that there should be no change in the franchise, but in the last amendment we conceded a change in it.

Mr. Edward Short: No.

Mr. Powell: No.

Mr. Mitchell: With respect to my right hon. Friend and to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), a change has been made to include not just those who are on the electoral register but those who are entitled to be on it. By our decision on the last amendment we have decided to allow Service men who have not taken the trouble to get themselves on to the electoral register to vote in the referendum. We have given them a special dispensation.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Gerry Fowler): There is a distinction to be drawn here. The franchise means those who are entitled to register to vote, whereas those who may vote are on the register at any one time.

Mr. Mitchell: However one takes the argument, and however one defines it, the Lord President said that many people who are working overseas have a proxy vote. Some of these people have taken the trouble to make that arrangement, but others have not. Some Service men have not taken the trouble to get themselves on the register, but they are to be allowed to vote. Why should not similar rules apply to those who have not taken the trouble to get a proxy vote? Once we concede a change for one group of people, why not make a change for others? This will give rise to a ridiculous situation. At an Army camp in Germany Service men may be working alongside British civilian employees. Service men will get a special dispensation to vote, but civilian employees will not. We have already made a change, and, therefore, I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that, because of my sense of fair play, I shall have difficulty in supporting the Government. The previous amendment having been conceded, I cannot see how the Government can fail to concede this one.

Mr. MacFarquhar: My hon. Friend said that on the ground of practicality he may be swayed towards supporting the Government because he does not want to delay the referendum. The Lord President conceded that what was suggested could be done by the referendum date.

Mr. Mitchell: To be fair, my right hon. Friend listed five minimum requirements

and said that only the first of them could be met, which is a powerful argument. The change having been made for Service men, I cannot see why a change cannot be made for civilian employees, and so on.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): My brief remarks will follow on closely from those which have just been made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell). I wish to speak particularly to Amendment No. 19, which stands in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) and for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart).
Amendment No. 19 would give the right to vote in the referendum to
British nationals who—
(i) were on the tenth day of October 1974 resident in a country outside the United Kingdom in an official or business capacity"—
that is, to persons who by virtue of being outside the country on 10th October 1974 in this capacity have disqualified themselves from the current British electoral register.
I regard this as a de minimis extension of the list of those who should be able to vote in the referendum. It is precisely the people classified in the amendment who do not fall within the description of "lotus eaters", those whom the Lord President does not think should have the right to vote because they have removed themselves from Britain for sybaritic reasons.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel said, one of the depressing features about the debates on the Bill is that we are constantly having negative reasons given to us why the vote should be restricted; but surely in respect of this unique occasion, as it has come to be trite to describe it, the Lord President, with all the wit and capacity available to him, should be looking to see who are the right people to whom the vote should be extended. I submit that people who were out of the country on 10th October in an official or business capacity of whatever sort are precisely the type of persons to whom the vote should be made available.

Mr. Powell: As the hon. Gentleman is referring to his Amendment No. 19, will


he indicate to the Committee what definition of "British national" he is using?

Mr. Renton: I am using the same definition as applies in other amendments of the same sort. I am thinking of those who would ordinarily be on the British electoral register and who in ordinary circumstances would have a vote here but who, because they were out of the country on 10th October in an official or business capacity, do not have the right to vote. It is specifically to these people, who were away on that date because they were serving their country and for no other reason, that the vote should be extended.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel quoted a letter from an employee of the British Steel Corporation in Paris. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides have received similar letters. I have received a letter from a constituent who has been seconded to Iran for two years on a major export job. He writes pointing out that he is there to help the British export effort. Why on earth should not the vote be extended to him on this issue, in which his experience would be of special value?
It is true that in the ballot everyone is equal. However, the people to whom my amendment relates have a broad view of Britain; they have been outside the country and they know what we need in terms of trade and foreign affairs. Because of their external experience their vote will be of special value.
In an earlier very unfortunate speech the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) contemptuously dismissed the wish of this side of the Committee to extend the right to vote through various amendments. He queried whether an immense pressure would not build up on embassies and consulates to decide to whom the right should be extended. He also queried whether the right should not be extended to trade union officials. I would certainly say that trade union officials who were outside the country on trade union business on 10th October should have the right to vote.
9.45 p.m.
Although this will mean work for embassies and consulates, it should be possible to get over the problem of a

definition by a guidance letter from the Government stating that such people had to come to the embassy with a letter from the Government or a United Kingdom employer confirming their case. On such a unique occasion I believe that embassies and consulates would welcome and accept the inconvenience gladly in order to ensure that the vote was extended in this matter to those who, I believe, most clearly should have it.

[Mr. GEORGE THOMAS in the Chair]

Mr. Michael Stewart: Attempts have been made to dissuade the Committee from approving the amendment by arguing that if we do so it will become a precedent for what happens at General Elections. However, it sems to me that the reply to that has been given already in the debate many times and it has not been rebutted. The reply is contained in the two worth "unique" and "irrevocable". The relevance is that those were the adjectives used to justify holding a referendum and making the great shift from decision by Parliament to the decision of a question by a referendum.
We were repeatedly and sincerely told we need not fear that a referendum on this subject would open the door to referenda on any other important subjects, as this was unique and irrevocable. Those two adjectives are fully justified. Those who have urged that for those reasons we should have a referendum and who have accepted the concept of uniqueness and of irrevocability cannot now argue that the special provisions we make for the franchise here are bound to flow over and infect the law for the conduct of ordinary parliamentary elections
I listened with great respect and care to my right hon. Friend the Lord President setting out the undoubted practical difficulties. However, I do not find myself convinced, for the following reason. I am thinking of a particular person but he is typical of many thousands of British subjects in question here. He was born and educated in this country and fought for this country in the British Army. He is a British subject or citizen—whatever one likes to call it—by birth. He worked in this country, and then went to take up an important commercial position in France. He is an important member of


the British community there. He is working hard and for the benefit of this country. He is concerned for the future of this country, and no doubt when he retires his home will be in this country. Surely he can be regarded as a person who has a proper stake in the matter, a proper right like the rest of us to vote in the referendum. Whatever meaning one gives to the word "nationality" it must embrace a person of that kind. There are tens of thousands like him.
I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Lord President did justice to the argument by his reference to the lotus eaters. None of us can give an exact figure for the number of useful and devoted citizens on the one hand or the number of lotus eaters on the other. It is not right to try to influence the argument by suggesting that the lotus eaters are the rule and the useful citizens the exception.

Mr. Edward Short: My right hon. Friend is using precisely that argument in the other direction.

Mr. Stewart: Not at all. If my right hon. Friend will follow me, he will understand.
I am not suggesting that one community is notably larger or smaller than the other, because we do not know. However, my right hon. Friend undoubtedly gave the impression to the Committee that the number of lotus eaters had great influence on him in causing him to make the recommendations that he did. It is not in dispute that there are a considerable number of people who in right and justice should have the vote. We now have to meet the Lord President's argument that we cannot provide it for them without opening the door to many abuses. But it is a recognised principle of our criminal law that it is better that a guilty man should go free than that an innocent man should be punished. I trust that it is a recognised principle of the administration of our social services that it is better that the scrounger should get away with it than that a claimant with a right should be denied something to which he is entitled. Therefore, I should want to hear much more evidence to suggest that the lotus eaters massively outnumber the rest before I could give weight to the arguments advanced from the Government Front Bench.
My right hon. Friend and I have both been in various ranks of Government for quite a time. We know that it is remarkably easy for Governments to demonstrate that the exact wording of amendments put forward by back benchers will not work out in practice. Possibly, when we see the fruits of the admirable measure to provide for Opposition parties to have more research work done it will not be so easy for Governments to pick holes in back benchers' amendments, but that time is not yet.
We all know quite well that if a Government make up their mind that in principle something should be done they can find a way to do it. If the Government concentrate their mind on the undoubtedly large number of people who should be able to give their vote on this issue, and say "We are determined to help them and to cut down on abuses as much as we can"—because it is no good trying to be perfectionist in the electoral law; there are bound to be some loopholes—if they concentrate their mind on those who should be enfranchised, and resolve to do all they can to prevent abuses, I am sure that we can get an amendment at which no one could cavil on the ground of its being impracticable. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will support my hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. A. P. Costain: As I was in Committee upstairs I did not have the benefit of hearing the Lord President's speech in which he referred to the lotus eaters. It was no surprise to me that the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) advanced the argument that he did, because, like me, he has had a goodly experience of our embassies and knows of our fellow citizens who have gone out into the world to tarn money for this country, to help our exports. I was sickened when I heard one Member on the Government benches say that people went abroad to line their pockets. That was the most disgusting statement that I have heard for many years.

Mr. John Ovenden: I suggest that the motives for working abroad are not completely altruistic and patriotic, and that as a by-product of working abroad there is a certain financial reward, which is sometimes greater than that for working in this country. Not all those


working abroad are assisting this country's export performance. Some are working for our foreign competitors and undermining our economic performance.

Mr. Costain: If the hon. Gentleman had worked in some of the tropical countries in which I and some of my colleagues have worked he would realise that there is no disgrace in being paid for working in conditions which affect the health.
However, that is outside the debate. Those who work in the embassies, representing this country overseas, understand the details of the problem much better than those in this country who, through no fault of their own, do not really understand all about it. Are not they best qualified to vote in the referendum?
Are the people who work overseas, who know the problems of the countries in which they are working and have seen the operation of the Common Market for many years, to be disfranchised because the Lord President says that they are lotus eaters and because it is too difficult to give them the vote? Surely they have a stronger case than most for a vote, because they know most about the problems.
We have accepted that the Services should be able to vote because that is convenient. There are nicely compact battalions and regiments, but, because it is more difficult to allow the people who work overseas to vote, we say that it is impossible. That is nonsense. We should give them the vote.

Mr. MacFarquhar: A number of interesting points have been raised during the debate on which, as the mover of the amendment. I should like to comment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), with that characteristic humour which is so happily common to us of Scottish blood, poked fun at the fact that there were lots of amendments and that they differed in their provisions. He poked fun at the poor Liberal Party for not having research assistance. In all seriousness, my hon. Friend, who himself said that in principle he was in favour, should have realised that the presence of a lot of amendments is not an indication

of stupidity on the part of hon. Members but an indication of the widespread interest of hon. Members in the measure.

Mr. George Cunningham: I did not ridicule the existence of a lot of amendments. I drew attention to the fact that, although I supported the idea in principle, each amendment failed in practice to find a way of securing a definable limit.

Mr. MacFarquhar: If my hon. Friend does not know when he is ridiculing hon. Members who heard him perhaps do.
It was suggested by one hon. Member who had clearly not heard the speeches of the Prime Minister, other Cabinet Ministers—my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott)—that this was not a unique occasion. I was staggered that he should suggest as unique an occasion when a person abroad might want to vote to prevent the destruction of a historic building in his constituency. If that is the kind of unique occasion which he is prepared to compare with this, the argument has been debased.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who was in good form, argued that this was the wrong time and that it was necessary to have grave, deliberate and mature consideration. He said that we could not do this as a side wind—whatever that is. The referendum measure has not been thought of by most hon. Members for a reasonable amount of time which could be described as mature. Even the Government proposals for a referendum, which I entirely support, has not gone through what one might in all honesty descibe as mature consideration. That is why we have difficulty with all these amendments.
For the right hon. Gentleman to say that he wants a referendum on this issue and then to bring out all the constitutional arguments that he would have used if he had opposed a referendum to deny the franchise extension is illegitimate.
The lotus-eating argument has been dealt with sufficiently, and the point has been made that, whether we like it or not, merit is not a qualification for voting. Even hon. Members who oppose me accept that.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many electrical, mechanical and civil engineers, technicians and technologists of all kinds who work abroad on behalf of this country on long-term contracts who will be excluded unless the Government give way?

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Referendum Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dormand.]

REFERENDUM BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. MacFarquhar: I think that we have dealt with the question of Service voters. I must confess I was glad to find that some of the people who oppose the amendment are at one with me and a number of my hon. Friends in accepting that the extension of the vote to Service voters is not, as the Lord President suggested, merely making it easier for Service men to vote but a change in the principle of the franchise that we have always adopted for Service voters.
The right hon. Member for Down, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made great play of the suggestion that hundreds of millions of people might be entitled to vote in the referendum. My hon. Friend suggested 1,000 million. I am tempted to say that it was all done by mirrors but in fact it was done on the basis of an argument on citizenship. I must give my right hon. Friend the Lord President his due. Although he enjoyed the interventions to which I have referred, he did not adduce a similar argument himself.
My right hon. Friend listed five major qualifications which he and his officials—and presumably Foreign Office officials—thought essential to lay down so as to have a practicable working of the amend-

ment if it is carried. At no time did my right hon. Friend allege that this system was likely to lead to the enfranchisement of hordes of people all over the world. The right hon. Member for Down, South, suggested 800 million and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury suggested 1,000 million. That indicates the ridiculous lengths to which opponents of the amendment have to stoop in order to try to defeat it.

Mr. George Cunningham: It is not the case that my hon. Friend's amendment would open the door to 1,000 million people, but there are other amendments which would do so.

Mr. MacFarquhar: If the House divides we shall be voting on my amendment. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Lord President fairly listed several grave problems but the size of the electorate abroad was not one of them. He said that there would be controversial decisions. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) has indicated clearly that it is more important that we should get to the voting stations the tens of thousands of people who have a right to vote in terms of the amendment. It is more important to get them to vote than to worry about the problem cases, the difficult cases which I accepted earlier were bound to arise.

Mr. Lee: Do I understand that my hon. Friend accepts that a large number of doubtful cases will have to be disputed? Such cases would have to be evaluated. How long would that take? Is my hon. Friend prepared to see the referendum deferred so that there shall be a realistic opportunity for the hard-pressed consular authorities to deal with such cases?

Mr. MacFarquhar: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present when the Lord President addressed the Committee. My right hon. Friend said he thought that there would be no difficulty; he had examined the amendment and had looked at the problem. I am prepared to accept that statement. However, I suggest that objections to the amendment have not been based on the grounds of principle because many people concede the principle on this specific issue. It is a unique issue, and it is right


that all the British people we can get to the polls should have the right to vote. Therefore, I would ask the House to support my amendment.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: It may be convenient if I reply briefly to one or two of the points.
I wish first to pick up the points made by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), who mentioned a Written Answer which he had received from my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office. That answer on 17th April said:
Excluding United Kingdom passport holders living in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States of America, for whom we have no figures. and those who have not registered with Her Majesty's consulates elsewhere, there are at least 366,000 British passport holders currently living abroad …"—[Official Report, 17th April 1975; Vol. 890, c. 158.]
The Committee will see the difficulty of making much of that point. It excludes a large part of the world. It includes only those registered with British consulates, which most British residents in Europe do not do, and includes only passport holders who are not in the same category as those who are entitled to vote.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) asked why Irishmen should be entitled to vote in this country, whereas some British residents abroad could not vote. The answer was given by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr.

Powell). Our franchise has extended hitherto to citizens of the Irish Republic with a residential qualification in this country. There is no possible means of detecting on an electoral register whether somebody is a British subject or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. It would be quite impracticable, even if one wished to do so, to exclude such people from the referendum. But the hon. Gentleman's question posed backwards the issue of principle behind the amendment.

The issue of principle on which I must take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) is this: is this the right moment at which to take a leap in the dark and to break the recommendations of every Speaker's Conference which has considered hitherto the extension of the franchise? Is it the time to break with the principle that our entitlement to vote is restricted to British subjects with residential qualifications and citizens of the Republic? Can that be done without going through the normal procedure of a Speaker's Conference and without bringing in a new Representation of the People Act? My view is that that would be an unwise step and that many Members of the House would come to regret it in years to come. I strongly advise the Committee to reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 211, Noes 251.

Division No. 176.]
AYES
[10.10 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Arnold, Tom
Clegg, Walter
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Cockcroft, John
Goodhart, Philip


Awdry, Daniel
Cope, John
Goodhew, Victor


Banks, Robert
Cormack, Patrick
Gorst, John


Beith, A. J.
Costain, A. P.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Benyon, W.
Crowder, F. P.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Biffen, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gray, Hamish


Biggs-Davison, John
Drayson, Burnaby
Griffiths, Eldon


Blaker, Peter
Durant, Tony
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Grist, Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brittan, Leon
Emery, Peter
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Brotherton, Michael
Eyre, Reginald
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Feirbairn, Nicholas
Hannam, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fairgrieve, Russell
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Havers, Sir Michael


Buck, Antony
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Hawkins, Paul


Budgen, Nick
Fookes, Miss Janet
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bulmer, Esmond
Fox, Marcus
Heseltine, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Freud, Clement
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Mark
Fry, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Holland, Philip


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Hordern, Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)




Hurd, Douglas
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Shersby, Michael


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morgan, Geraint
Silvester, Fred


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Sims, Roger


James, David
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Sinclair, Sir George


Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jessel, Toby
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Mudd, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Neave, Airey
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Jopting, Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Neubert, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Newton, Tony
Stainton, Keith


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Normanton, Tom
Stanbrook,Ivor


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Nott, John
Stanley, John


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Onslow, Cranley
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Knox, David
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Lamont, Norman
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Lane, David
Pardoe, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Parkinson, Cecil
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lawrence, Ivan
Pattie, Geoffrey
Tapsell, Peter


Lawson, Nigel
Penhaligon, David
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Percival, Ian
Tebbit, Norman


Lloyd, Ian
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Loveridge, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Jevon)


Luce, Richard
Prior, Rt Hon James
Townsend, Cyril D.


McCrindle, Robert
Raison, Timothy
Trotter, Neville


Macfarlane, Neil
Rathbone, Tim
Tugendhat, Christopher


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


MacGregor, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Viggers, Peter


Mackintosh, John P.
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wakeham, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Madel, David
Ridsdale, Julian
Walters, Dennis


Marquand, David
Rifkind, Malcolm
Weatherill, Bernard


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wells, John


Mates, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Mather, Carol
Rose, Paul B.
Wiggin, Jerry


Mawby, Ray
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mayhew, Patrick
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Younger, Hon George


Mills, Peter
Royle, Sir Anthony



Miscampbell, Norman
Sainsbury, Tim
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Dr. Colin Phipps and


Monro, Hector
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Mr. George Strauss.


Montgomery, Fergus
Shelton, William (Streatham)





NOES


Archer, Peter
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Armstrong, Ernest
Corbett, Robin
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Ashley, Jack
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Flannery, Martin


Ashton, Joe
Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Crawford, Douglas
Forrester, John


Atkinson, Norman
Cronin, John
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cryer, Bob
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Garrett. W. E. (Wallsend)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
George, Bruce


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Davidson, Arthur
Gilbert, Dr John


Bates, Alf
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Golding, John


Bean, R. E.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Gould, Bryan


Bell, Ronald
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Graham, Ted


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Deakins, Eric
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bishop, E. S.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Grocott, Bruce


Boardman H.
Delargy, Hugh
Hardy, Peter


Booth, Albert
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Harper, Joseph


Boolhroyd, Miss Betty
Dempsey, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Doig, Peter
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dormand, J. D.
Hatton, Frank


Bradley, Tom
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunn, James A.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dunnett, Jack
Helfer, Eric S.


Buchan, Norman
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Henderson, Douglas


Buchanan, Richard
Eadie, Alex
Hooley, Frank


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Edge, Geoff
Horam, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Campbell, Ian
English, Michael
Huckfleid, Les


Canavan, Dennis
Ennals, David
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Cant, R. B.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clemitson, Ivor
Evans, John (Newton)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Hunter, Adam


Coiquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)







Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, ltchen)
Skinner, Dennis


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Moate, Roger
Small, William


Janner, Greville
Moonman, Eric
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stallard, A. W.


John, Brynmor
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stoddart, David


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Newens, Stanley
Stott, Roger


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Noble, Mike
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oakes, Gordon
Summerskili, Hon Dr Shirley


Judd, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
Swain, Thomas


Kaufman, Gerald
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Kerr, Russell
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ovenden, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lambie, David
Owen, Dr David
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lamborn, Harry
Padley, Walter
Thompson, George


Lamond, James
Park, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Leadbitter, Ted
Parker, John
Tierney, Sydney


Lee, John
Parry, Robert
Tinn, James


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Pearl, Rt Hon Fred
Tomney, Frank


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Perry, Ernest
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Lipton, Marcus
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Litterick, Tom
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Loyden, Eddie
Price, William (Rugby)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Luard, Evan
Radice, Giles
Ward, Michael


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Watkins, David


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Reid, George
Watt, Hamish


MacCormick, Iain
Richardson. Miss Jo
Weetch, Ken


McElhone, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weitzman, David


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)
Welsh, Andrew


Mackenzie, Gregor
Robertson, John (Paisley)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Maclennan Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn
White, James (Pollok)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Whitlock, William


McNamara, Kevin
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wigley, Dafydd


Madden, Max
Rooker, J. W.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Magee, Bryan
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Mahon, Simon
Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Marks, Kenneth
Ryman, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Marten, Neil
Selby, Harry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Maynard, Miss Joan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Woodall, Alec


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Woof, Robert


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mikardo, Ian
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)



Millan, Bruce
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Tim Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Thomas. In view of the very strong arguments advanced in favour and the

total absence of arguments against from Government Ministers, will you agree to put Amendment No. 19 to the vote?

The Chairman: I am afraid not.

Mr. MacFarquhar: I beg to move Amendment No. 104, in page 1, line 11, at the beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (4B) of this section'.

The Chairman: With this amendment it will be convenient also to discuss the following amendments:
No. 15, in page 1, line 14, after 'constituency', insert—
'(b) all those on holiday or otherwise disenfranchised in a normal General Election'.
No. 116, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—
'Provided that persons included in (a) and (b) above who will be absent from home on holiday shall be entitled to vote by post'.
No. 20, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—
'(c) persons entitled to vote as provided in subsection 3(a) above who notify the Electoral Registration Officer that they will be absent from home on holiday on the day appointed for the holding of the Referendum, subject to any order made by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 1(4) below specifying the method of notification, the amount of notice to be given and the method by which such persons may exercise their rights to a postal vote'.
No. 23, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—
'(c) persons who are entitled to vote at Parliamentary elections but who cannot vote personally owing to their absence from home on holiday'.
No. 105, in page 2, line 4, at end insert—
'(4B) An Order in Council under this section may make or enable the Secretary of State to make special provision in respect to persons otherwise excepted under the Representation of the People Acts who are unable or likely to be unable to go to the polling station because they will be outside the constituency on holiday; and any provision so made may permit persons to whom it applies to vote by post'.
No. 34, in page 2, line 9, at end insert—
'(6) For the purposes of this referendum only, Returning Officers shall issue postal votes on receipt of written applications on an approved form, to persons who will be unable to vote in person by reason of being on holiday on the day fixed by the Secretary of State for holding the referendum; and any provisions to the contrary in the Representation of the People Acts shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Act.'

and New Clause 5—Voting in referendum by persons on holiday.

Mr. MacFarquhar: The substantive issue is covered in Amendment No. 105. The basic principle behind the amendment is the same here as in the case of citizens abroad. It was argued repeatedly in the debate on the last group of amendments that this is a unique occasion and a vital national issue and that therefore the franchise should be extended as widely as possible. This would include holiday makers, as well as citizens abroad had the previous group of amendments been carried.
Most holiday makers made arrangements for their holidays probably as far back as January, or perhaps at the turn of the year, not knowing that the Government would call a referendum on 5th June. It is wrong that on this crucial issue these people, who could number in the millions it is sometimes suggested, should be disfranchised just because of the Government's selection of the date.
Frankly, the attitude on all sides of the House of Commons in the past to the holiday votes question has been a rather absurd carry over from the puritan revolution. The implication seems to be that if someone is engaged in so frivolous an activity as taking a holiday, he or she is too unserious to be entitled to the vote. Clearly that is an untenable position today, or at least, it should be.
There can be no argument on principle against votes for holiday makers. There can be arguments only of administrative practicability. On this issue, rather more than on the previous issue—as I understand that the figures are considerably greater—I am prepared to accept that there might be enormous complications with the holiday maker vote—on the practicability; not on the principle. I also accept that with this amendment there is a possibility of extending the franchise and having that extension carried over into the General Election procedure. That was not the case on the previous group of amendments. There was no reason why it should have been so. However, I fully acknowledge that it is a possibility that in this case the voting of holiday makers in the referendum could be used as an argument for putting them on the electoral roll for General Elections.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Why not?

Mr. MacFarquhar: If the hon. Lady had been listening earlier, she would have known the answer because I indicated that answer.
I see no reason of principle why holiday makers at the time of a General Election should not have the vote. The argument is one of practicability. I for one will be listening to the Lord President's argument on this amendment on the question of practicability. If this can be done, with whatever difficulty—as I think the Government admitted, in the debate on the previous amendments, that it could be done—and without putting back the date of the referendum, I hope that in this case, too, the Government will reconsider the matter.

Mr. Carlisle: I am happy to have the opportunity of supporting the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) in his amendment, which is very similar to an amendment in the name of myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page).
Personally, as I never fail to make clear, I am opposed to the idea of a referendum. But if we are to have a referendum, surely the House of Commons ought to approach this matter on the basis that the greatest number of people possible should be able to take part in that referendum. We are told by the Government that the justification of this referendum is that the issue of whether or not we stay in the Common Market is one of unique importance for Britain. We are told that it has nothing to do with any internal difficulties, and that it is because of the vital importance of this issue that the people of this country should decide. If that is so, surely it should be a vote of the greatest possible number of people in the country.
10.30 p.m.
It is wrong, if this is a unique issue, if the whole future economic, social and political well-being of this country is tied up with the decision to be taken on 5th June, that some members of our society should be deprived of the vote merely because they happen to be away on holiday. I agree with the hon. Member for Belper who said that the practical objections are wholly different in General Elec-

tions. In principle I believe that those who are on holiday should have the opportunity of voting in a General Election. They are deciding the issue of which party should govern the country for the coming five years.
In the Home Office, during the course of the last Government, I approached the issue on that basis with the knowledge that the Conservative Party had, at a party conference, passed a resolution calling for holiday makers to be entitled to a vote at a General Election. When we referred this to the Electoral Advisory Committee there turned out to be one almost insurmountable difficulty.
The argument was that if we extended the right to postal voting to people on holiday as well as to those who moved from their homes, those who were ill and away on business, we would so increase in size the number of people entitled to a postal vote that we would have to bring forward the final date for applications for postal votes. What the Committee said—I do not think that its report was pub. lished—was that the likely increase in the number of people requiring postal votes would mean that we would have to close the final date for postal votes so much ahead of the date of the election that in the narrow period of a General Election we would very nearly have to say, "This is the final date for postal votes" before the Prime Minister had announced the date of the election. The argument against postal votes for holiday makers in a General Election is a strong one, I will concede, for the purpose of the argument. It is one that the Home Office accepted in the past.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that even if 1 million people exercised a holiday vote it would be an average of only 1,700 postal votes per constituency? Is it really an outrageous administrative problem to deal with that number of postal votes?

Mr. Carlisle: I am at the moment stating that that is the argument of practical objection which has always been raised against allowing postal votes at a General Election. Successive Governments of each party, and a previous Speaker's Conference, in 1968, have, for reasons which seemed good to them at the time, accepted that practical objection.
My point is that that argument has no application in the conditions of a referendum. The only argument that has been raised against the principle of postal votes at a General Election is that we would so have to bring forward the closing date for postal votes that there would be a very short time between calling the election and the final date. I think it has been suggested we would have to bring it forward 10 days.
But tonight, if the Government get their way, we know for a fact that the referendum is to take place on 5th June. People who are likely to be on holiday then could apply for a postal vote today, tomorrow—or they could have applied yesterday. The argument that we do not know until three weeks and two days before the date on which we are to vote has no significance in a referendum. Since no other argument in practice has been put up against the principle that everyone who is able should be allowed to vote at any election, in the circumstances of a referendum there can be no argument to justify refusing a vote to those on holiday.
There is a secondary argument. It is said that this is open to abuse.
I adopt the words of the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) who said that we can get a little too worried about potential abuse and not consider the much more important issue of the vast number of people whom we disfranchise by our action. I do not believe that the argument about abuse carries much weight. The person concerned has to give a holiday address. His postal vote is sent there, and he has to be at that address to fill in the form and send it back.
Subject to what the Lord President of the Council says, I cannot see any argument that entitles the House to disfranchise a substantial number of people from casting their vote on what is said to be the unique issue of continued membership or otherwise of the Common Market. It would be a tragedy if the House, when it need not do so, and without creating any precedent for any future General Election, were to prevent those of our fellow citizens who choose to be on holiday in June from having a vote on so vital an issue affecting the future of this Country.

Mr. Hooley: This is the second time in five years that the Government of the day

have chosen to hold a nation-wide poll in the middle of the summer, in a month when many people, quite normally and naturally, are away from their homes on holiday. I happen to know to my cost that in 1970, which was the last time this occurred, there was great anger and resentment among many people who were deprived of their vote because they had quite innocently and very reasonably decided to take their holiday on the day on which the General Election was held.
The proposition for a holiday vote, unlike the matter which we have just debated and decided, does not involve any constitutional change or any change in the nature of the franchise. The previous amendment would have changed the franchise in an important respect, and that is why I voted against it. In this case we are discussing the ability of people to vote who, by every standard of qualification, have the right to do so. They are on the register, they are qualified in terms of nationality, age, residence and so on, in the same way as every Member of this House is qualified to vote. They have a legal right to vote, but because this House in its wisdom has decided that the ballot shall be held in a holiday month in the peak of the summer probably hundreds of thousands of citizens will find that they cannot exercise that right on a great constitutional issue which we all agree is of enormous importance to the House.
I find it outrageous that because a citizen, without any foreknowledge of the date, without any means of knowing that this date was to be decided upon—indeed, the House was told only a short time ago that it was to be 5th June—decided to be on holiday on this date he should be deprived of the right to cast his vote. It is a right which he is just as entitled to exercise as I am, or as you are, Mr. Thomas.
I find it equally outrageous that arguments about mechanics and administration are advanced to support the contention that these people should be deprived of their right to vote.
Before coming to Parliament I was a bureaucrat by profession: I was a professional administrator. I often trotted out excellent administrative reasons why something could not be done. If my excellent administrative reasons were not


accepted and the organisation concerned decided to proceed with the project, I as a first-class administrator set my mind to the problem and always found that, after all, it was not unfeasible.
I am sure that in this case all the problems of allowing a holiday vote could be overcome on this occasion and, I hope, on future occasions. Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), I believe that it would set a good precedent. It is important that everybody who is on the register and legally entitled to vote should be given every facility that the ingenuity of our electoral system and our administrative system can devise to exercise his vote.
Various Committees of the House of Commons have discussed the matter and have reached some equivocal and ambiguous decisions. The matter was debated for a whole day as recently as last year. I regretted that no firm decision was then taken.
A person who fixed his holiday perhaps as long as 12 months ago had no means of knowing that the ballot would be held on 5th June. What is even more important, a holiday booking involves one in a financial contract. Someone who broke such a contract so as to exercise his right to vote, which he might do if he were very conscientious, could face a serious financial penalty. Why should an ordinary citizen who innocently fixed his holiday for this period be faced with such a burden? Why should we say to him "Either you lose perhaps as much as £250 or you lose your vote on an issue which the House of Commons has agreed to be an important constitutional one affecting Britain's future for many years ahead."
It is preposterous that we should ask a citizen to make that choice when it would be administratively feasible, though it would cause trouble for some officials, but they are there to deal with troubles, to offer people the opportunity of voting even though they might be away from home.
There are two arguments about numbers. One is that such a colossal number would be away that it would be difficult to give them voting rights. The second argument is that there might be so few away that it would not be worth bother-

ing. The figure of 3 million has been mentioned as the possible maximum number of persons who might be away on holiday and therefore entitled to claim a postal vote if the Committee approved the amendment.
If that figure is correct, the Government should reflect seriously before advising the House to put obstacles in the way of 3 million voters. That is 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. of the total number qualified to vote. If the Government stick to their figure of 3 million, they should in common decency accept that those 3 million people should be enabled to exercise their vote in the referendum.
10.45 p.m.
A more realistic figure of, say, a million people away from their homes on holiday on 5th June amounts to an average of 1,700 postal votes in each constituency. It might be a few more in a big constituency and a few less elsewhere. No electoral registration officer who knows his business can claim that he cannot cope with 1,700 votes. If he needs a couple of clerks or three part-time clerks to deal with the extra work, they can be recruited and paid for. It is arrant nonsense to say that figures of that order cannot be dealt with in the normal electoral system.
The other question that has been raised is that of fraud or misuse of the right to vote in that way. A person who applies for a postal vote cannot then vote at the polling station, because his name is struck off the list. I see no reason why a person should fraudulently claim a postal vote on the ground that he is away on holiday, when it does not affect his right to cast his vote. If he does not claim it, he can still go down to the polling station and vote in the ordinary way. I cannot see what advantage there would be to a person to pretend that he was away on holiday, and make false statements and declarations, going to the trouble of having a ballot paper sent to another address and then presumably forwarded by a fellow conspirator. The case based on misuse or abuse does not stand up to serious examination.
As for the mechanics of dealing with the matter, my amendment gives the appropriate Minister the power to make. by order, whatever administrative arrangements he thinks most appropriate. For


example, he could require that persons who were on holiday and wanted the postal vote should make a formal declaration, counter-signed by a magistrate, that they were genuinely on holiday. They could be required to produce a document, such as a receipt or booking form. A fine or other penalty, even imprisonment, could be imposed on someone who deliberately set out to abuse or misuse this facility. I cannot see who would want to abuse it and run the risk of a fine or imprisonment for the sake of doing by post something that he could do in person by going to the polling station.
There remains the final consideration, that it might set a precedent for elections. I should regard it as a welcome precedent. I am convinced that within a year or two the House will accept this arrangement, and that it will become part of the ordinary facilities for voting by post. We should do much better to introduce it now.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). I can support his points, and I would also support the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) in his amendment because I am sure that in every way it goes with new Clause 5 with which I am associated, with my hon. Friends.
The whole question of holiday voters must command the favourable attention of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has rightly said that there are practical difficulties which we have to think about. I shall not repeat some of the arguments I advanced in earlier debates. I would not wish to belabour the Lord President and the Government about the difficulties they have got into. I have every sympathy with the Lord President in his having to pick up the pieces of this Bill.
I urge the Committee to think carefully before refusing to pass this amendment. From my standpoint, the argument must be that the referendum is a unique instrument. I hope that those who take differing views about the argument on General Elections will join me in accepting these arguments, because one can consider separately whether one would accept holiday makers' votes at a General

Election in that context, as being a different context.
The Government have known for more than a year that sooner or later they would be faced with this device and they therefore cannot now say that this cannot be worked out properly because of shortage of time. We expect to hear from the Government that they accept this in principle. Once they do, logical deductions follow. They cannot say that there is no way in which the bulk of holiday makers could be given the vote, even by 5th June.
If we are to be stuck with the "adhocery" of the worst kind, which this Bill is, we must make the best of a bad job. For holiday makers' votes, there is a reasonable period, and this could be worked without a genuine fear of abuse—and this question of abuse is in many ways being used to obstruct and obscure the real argument.
If 5th June is not feasible time with all the pressures to cover the bulk of holiday makers, I would willingly accept a delay of a few weeks. I do not accept, as some would argue, that delay in this matter is crucial. This is the Government's own initiative and the principle here is so important that they must be prepared to work this one out. If delay is to follow, the Government should be prepared to live with it, because, after all, this is purely for the Government's convenience. They may say that uncertainty must be resolved, but uncertainty for whom? There is none in the country. The only uncertainty is on the Government benches. They cannot say it is a pressing matter for the public at large. That is not so.
I once more urge the Committee to support the amendment. It will not only meet a substantial national mood in favour of allowing holiday makers to vote but it will convey a tinge of respectability to the Bill and make it worth while.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am sure that all hon. Members agree that electors who are away on holiday feel deeply embittered when they are unable to vote. Every hon. Member has come across many constituents who have grumbled about that. The grievance will be particularly


strong in the case of the referendum because of its unique and important character. Constituents will be upset, on this occasion above all others, if because they are on holiday they will not be able to vote. If practical means can be found without abuse to accommodate those people by giving them the vote I should certainly support such a proposal, but there is a danger about postal voting that we have never taken sufficiently seriously when on one or two recent occasions we have extended the facility for postal voting.
The postal vote is a dangerous procedure. It is contrary to the fundamental principle adopted in the Ballot Act 1872. The postal vote is a witness-able vote. The reason why over the last hundred years we have not had corruption in British elections is that it is expensive to corrupt a lot of people. That does not apply to local elections where it can be done quite cheaply.
The reason why we have not had corruption is not that the elector is entitled to Keep his vote secret, it is that even if he does not want to keep it secret he cannot do otherwise. His vote is necessarily secret. If he wants to sell his vote he cannot prove to the purchaser that he has given it to him or to the person for whom the purchaser acts. That is the protection against corruption. The postal vote—and the proxy vote to a lesser extent—is the exception. The postal vote can be witnessed and therefore it can be bought.
In recent years the postal vote has been extended partly by changes in rules and partly by changes in habit. It has been extended in the case of people who are too sick to be able to get to the poll by not requiring medical certification. We now leave it to the discretion of the registration officer whether to require a certificate by a doctor, nurse or any other medically qualified person. In my constituency and many others the registration officer does not require any such certification by a medically qualified person.
When, a year ago, the previous Conservative Government misguidedly took a half-page advertisement in the newspapers to point out to people that they could have a postal vote just for

the asking if they complied with the requirements, many a registration officer, including my own, decided that if the Government raised these expectations in the mind of the electorate it was not for him to go in the opposite direction by being stringent about the evidence which would satisfy him that the person was entitled to a postal vote. Consequently, in my area and in many others one can get a postal vote in practice for the asking. I hope that the Home Office will take this point more seriously than it has.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Representing a constituency in the North-East of Scotland, may I dissociate myself from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham)? Disabled persons, even when the registration officer has admitted that they are disabled, have not necessarily been able to get postal votes. In the areas of Scotland of which I have experience, there is no question of registration officers dishing out votes without calling for medical certificates.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Cunningham: I thought I had made it clear that the present situation is that the registration officer has discretion for medical certification, although he did not have it previously. May be it is difficult for someone with my accent to suggest that the news has not reached the hon. Lady's constituency. I merely point out that the situation varies from area to area. Indeed, that is the point that I am making.
As the news gets through and as one registration officer feels that he cannot take a more rigid approach than his colleague on the other side of the boundary, postal voting will gradually become available almost upon request. As the postal vote is a witnessable vote and open to corruption there is a danger that is not present in the referendum voting. No one would try to corrupt a great mass of people because it would be too expensive. It would also be extremely expensive in parliamentary elections. Of course, it would be possible to do so. There are many hon. Members who are in the House on a few hundred votes. As it is a long time since it was practical to have corruption in British elections people are overlooking the possibilities


that exist. The possibility of corruption would certainly exist if this principle were extended to local elections.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that in a postal vote it is the certification that is witnessable and not the vote itself? A postal vote is witnessable in that a person does not have to go into a polling booth and put his cross on the paper without someone seeing it. The distinction that the hon. Gentleman is making is without validity.

Mr. Cunningham: No. If I go to the polling station and mark my ballot paper It is not permitted and it is not practical in normal circumstances to show it to anyone else.

Mr. Lawrence: It is witnessable.

Mr. Cunningham: It is not witness-able as I cannot show it to anyone else.

Mr. Lawrence: It is possible to show it to someone else.

Mr. Cunningham: In the case of the postal vote the person sits at home and marks his paper—

Mr. Carlisle: The holiday maker is, beyond peradventure, not at home.

Mr. Cunningham: It does not matter if the postal voter marks his paper in an hotel lounge, the point is that it is a witnessable vote in that it can be shown to someone. I stress that I am not making that point in the context of the referendum although it is relevant to it. I am saying that once we have allowed for the postal vote for holiday makers in the referendum it is bound to be extended, as has already happened in a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), to include holiday makers in normal elections. That would be a pity for the reasons that I have given.
If it were a choice between votes for holiday makers in elections with the possibility of abuse, to which I have drawn attention, or no votes for holiday makers for ever, we might have to put up with the possibility of abuse. But we are not faced with that choice. Obviously what we should do is to have the absent vote in person for the holiday maker and, indeed, for others. In that way the person who was away from his

normal residence in this country would be able to vote at one special polling station in each constituency, but he would vote there under the normal methods. He would either have a blank paper which he could not mark until just before putting it into the box or he would be handed a paper at the special polling station which he would then put into the box. It would therefore be a witnessable vote.
Of course, there is no possibility of corruption in practice in the referendum even as regards postal votes. If the Government were prepared to say that they would provide for votes for holiday makers in future but on the basis of a vote in person at a special polling station in each constituency, and that they would accept the postal vote for holiday makers in the referendum because of the lack of time to do anything else, I would vote for the amendment. But I am so persuaded of the dangers of the extension of the postal vote that, unless the Government are prepared to give an assurance that this will not create a precedent in respect of voting in normal elections, I cannot support the amendment.

Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair.]

Mr. Cyril Smith: We heard a remarkable speech from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). We heard an attack on the elderly, the sick, and the disabled—

Mr. George Cunningham: Nothing of the sort.

Mr. Smith: They are the people who have postal votes and they are the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Cunningham: No.

Mr. Smith: That was the impression I got from the hon. Member. Indeed, in part of his speech he said that he accepted that his remarks were not applicable to the referendum. Then, realising that he had put himself out of order, he said that perhaps they were applicable to the referendum. It was one of the most remarkable speeches I had heard in a long time.
I am very much in favour of the principle of referenda—indeed I am more in favour of the principle than are most, if


not all, Labour Members. I believe in the principle of referenda—not merely a referendum on Europe. I have never varied in my opinion on referenda and I stuck by it in the 1970 General Election before Labour Members were converted to that point of view. Indeed, I have demonstrated my support for the principle of referenda in the Division Lobbies—if I may say so, against the wishes and advice of my own party. But that is my view. I believe that referenda are right and I support them as a matter of principle. If referenda are to be of any help to elected Members they must be conducted among the widest possible cross-section of people who are called on to vote or who have the right to vote.
I would not object to the method suggested by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury if it could be shown to be practicable. My objection to it lies in the matter of administrative convenience. But whatever method is adopted, I believe that people on holiday should have the right to vote not only in this referendum but in a General Election. I personally hope that there will be other referenda in the future. Therefore, I would welcome the extension of referenda. The only argument which I can see against giving people on holiday postal votes is an administrative one. There would undoubtedly be administrative difficulties. I can see no other logical argument against the proposal.
I do not accept that it is impossible to introduce postal votes for people who are on holiday. How do postal votes work? It is a perfectly simple system. One has to produce a piece of cardboard with four printed points on it. The man or woman concerned merely strikes out the points that do not apply, leaving those that do to back the application for a postal vote. The person concerned signs it and in some constituencies he has it witnessed.
What on earth is to stop a fifth point being included in the form to the effect: "I shall be away on holiday on voting day"? That could be witnessed and the Government could devise any witness they liked. They could insist that the person concerned obtained the signature of the magistrate who could have it proved to his satisfaction—by the production of

tickets, or whatever it may be—that the person concerned was going on holiday on the day stated. The travel agent could certify the fact that the man was to go on holiday. Members of local authorities could be brought in—I am sure they would not be subject to corruption—and all sorts of witnesses could be used to certify that the person concerned would be away on holiday on that day. The man fills in the form, which is then witnessed by someone who certifies that the application is bona fide.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) smiles. I agree that solicitors could act as witnesses. I should be prepared to trust professional people, though clearly some Government supporters would not.

Mr. George Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is raising a difficulty which does not exist. It is necessary for an applicant to certify only that he is likely to be away. That will apply also to holidays. Otherwise, having expected to be away on holiday, the applicant would have to go.

Mr. Smith: I know that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) sets himself up as an authority on these matters. He states how the law should be written. It is possible to make postal votes available to people who can prove that they will be away on holiday and exclude the phrase "likely to be away". I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument.
When the applicant has filled in the form it will go to the returning officer, who will type the name on a sheet of paper, tick off the name on a register to show that the vote has been issued to the person, and issue a postal vote. It is a simple process. It is a load of codswallop for any one to suggest that that process is administratively difficult or impossible. If the will is there it can be done. If the amendment is not carried it will not be because the process is administratively impossible but because Government supporters are determined that people on holiday shall not be allowed to vote. That is the issue.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is not there a question of political principle involved here? The business man can always arrange when to be away. However, the


holiday maker, who saves up for his annual holiday, cannot rearrange it once he has paid the money and made his plans. He cannot arrange to do without his holiday. Is not it strange that the Labour Party does not support the principle that people who have arranged their holidays should be able to vote?

Mr. Smith: I agree. That is why the Liberal Party voted in favour of extending the possibility of who should and who should not be allowed to vote in the referendum.
Once a postal vote has been issued, the elector's name is ticked off on the electoral register as having voted. Even if the elector went to the polling booth to seek a vote, which is the only abuse that I can see, he would not be allowed it, because it would already have been issued as a postal vote. That now happens in local and national elections. Some people, having been issued with postal votes at addresses they left months before, have turned up at polling booths to find that they had been disfranchised because postal votes had been issued in their names. There can be no abuse in terms of a person having two votes. The only possible abuse can be that a person claims to vote by post when he is capable of voting in person. I accept that is an abuse—we heard about secret ballots, and so on—but it is not a serious abuse of democracy. In the end, the man is using only one vote whether he votes at home or at the polling station. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment. I believe that it is an extension of the principle of democracy.
15 p.m.
Finally, I should like to make a constituency point. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), who was standing at the Bar a moment ago, has left, but I see the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Callaghan) is still there. I hope that local Members around Rochdale will think seriously about this matter. It is certainly not uncommon for people in our area to take their holidays in June. Indeed, the annual wakes week in Rochdale is within 14 days of the polling day for this referendum. If the original date had been agreed, it would have been in the middle of Rochdale's wakes week.
I assure the Leftists who are present that I am not talking about company directors and great businessmen, but about workers in industry who stagger their holidays. People in engineering normally have a one- or two-week holiday in June and then take another two weeks in September. There is nothing uncommon or unusual about that.
If the Government do not accept the amendment, they will not only disfranchise hundreds of thousands of people in this country, but—I think that this will certainly appeal to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)—hundreds of thousands of workers. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is on the side of the workers in this country, though some of us have doubts as to how he implements that support. None the less, that is what he claims.
I hope that practical difficulties will not be put in the way of this proposal. If the amendment is not carried, it will not be because it cannot be practically implemented, but because the Government do not have the will to allow people on holiday to vote in the referendum.

Sir Raymond Gower: I sincerely hope that the Lord President has been impressed by the manner in which the amendment was moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) supported by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and others.
I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) that we want to see the will to introduce this reform.
The Leader of the House, in his remarks on the last amendment, said that the Government want the largest possible vote. Here is his chance to demonstrate that claim. If they want the largest possible vote they can get it by accepting the amendment. The Government said that they could not get it on the last amendment because of various technical difficulties. Many hon. Members have explained that those technical difficulties do not obtain in this instance.
Whatever the result and however we may view the rights and wrongs of the idea of a referendum, it is desirable that, now that it is to be held, there should be a large and convincing poll and, I hope, a convincing decision by the nation


in favour of remaining in the Community. But that is irrelevant. Whatever the decision, it must be by a convincing margin on a large poll.
It would be regrettable if the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman in particular, signified tonight that they were not prepared to take the opportunity of maximising the number of people who will vote on this occasion.
The point has been made that people who go away on holiday make their arrangements at an early date. Certainly that has been my experience at General Elections when many people have explained to me that they cannot easily alter arrangements once they have been made. I know of several examples where people have been able to afford to come back great distances to vote. One of my constituents came back from Northern France and two or three returned from Cornwall. But not everyone can afford to do that. Far too many people have to arrange their holidays on a very slender budget, and they cannot afford the expense of travelling back great distances. It is not fair therefore to exclude these people simply because they are of slender means.
The Lord President may not be prepared to accept the precise wording of the amendment, but surely he can accept the principle behind it. Surely with all the advice at his command in his Department and in the Home Office he can frame a formula which will enable this measure to be implemented without risk of an unreasonable degree of abuse. If it is framed to accommodate those who have actually made their holiday arrangements and can produce the minimum of evidence to show that fact there is no reason why it should not be done.
I want to see as many people as possible voting in the referendum, and therefore we need a postal vote for those on holiday. I should like to see such a vote in General Elections, too. My hon. Friends and I are not afraid of democracy or of very large polls. I hope that all hon. Members will share that view. As many people as possible should have the chance to vote. Let us not deny them that privilege on this occasion.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I never thought I should live to see the

day when I should agree with every word uttered in a speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). I congratulate him on what he said. I did not believe that I should live to see the day, either, when the Labour Party, which stands for universal franchise, would, through a whole debate, constantly put difficulties in the way of enabling people to exercise the right to vote. There has even been muttering by hon. Members below the Gangway about members of the Armed Forces not being well enough informed to vote on this issue. Yet they are the people who insist upon one man one vote in Rhodesia and other places when the people they want to give the vote to may not be as well educated as the members of our Armed Forces.
I want the Government to explain tonight how they can resist giving holiday makers the right to vote on this occasion. They accept, as we all do, that at General Elections people away on business should have the right to vote. If that can be done I cannot see that there should be any difficulties about holiday makers.
We have been reminded constantly that this is a unique event. So unique and important is it, we are told, that it will be binding on the Government. The Prime Minister said today that even if he believes that it is against the interests of his constituents and the other people of the United Kigdom he is prepared to vote for us to come out of the EEC if the people say so. If the vote is that vital and unique why should those on holiday be denied the right to vote?
It has been said before, and I hammer it home once again, that in general most people are not free to choose when they go on holiday. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said that there are areas in which everyone goes on holiday at the same time. That applies particularly where there are large industries and so on. But in smaller companies and firms, of which there are very many which employ a very large number of electors, it is a question of taking one's turn in the queue or being spaced out over the year. Those with young children have to take their holidays during the school holiday season and go away in August or early September. Those without young children are obliged to take dates in June which they might not otherwise choose.
Therefore, people are not able to make a choice as to whether they are able to exercise their right to vote. It is decided for them in the majority of cases. I need read only a few words of a letter I received from a constituent about this matter. In this case it is not because he cannot decide when he may go on holiday but because he had earlier heard that the Government had said that they expected to hold this referendum on 19th June. He says,
I deliberately arranged my holiday to be back, assuming the date would be the 19th, and now I shall be unavoidably away which means I keenly feel I am deprived of exercising my vote. Altogether, there will be 13 of us unable to vote
Because the Government announced a particular date earlier and have changed their minds, if they do not enable us tonight to allow votes for holiday makers they will be denying many other people in that situation the right to express their view on this vital issue.
It needs no more emphasis from me. I merely say that if there is a will to enable people to cast their vote on this issue, it can be arranged. If the Government insist that this is a vital vote, a unique occasion and something in which they believe so very strongly, they will accept the amendment.

Mr. Emery: The only basis of the referendum which can hold water in any way is the Government's desire to remove any future uncertainty about the position of Great Britain in relation to the Common Market. That having been argued, the only way in which that object can be reasonably achieved is to have the greatest possible number of people voting in the referendum.
As I have previously made only too plain, the referendum is undermining the position of Members of Parliament. It can only have been demanded by the Government because they believe that the House of Commons does not represent the views of the electorate on this subject. If that is the Government's view, surely they must bend every muscle to ensure that they get the largest turn-out available. That being so, the only argument that can be mounted for refusing to have a postal vote is the fact that such a vote is administratively difficult to arrange and inconvenient.
That argument can certainly be mounted when there is a limited time between the declaration of an election and the polling day. As the Lord President knows, returns for a General Election need only 22 days. But that is not an argument that can possibly be mounted on this matter. Indeed, if the Committee were to decide tonight that there shall be the availability of a postal vote for anyone who is going on holiday, the Home Office could tomorrow begin instructing the authorities to take the necessary steps to ensure that that could be carried out.
It may be said that the Bill will not have been passed. That is fair enough. But at least the Government could be warning the authorities that the House of Commons had spoken, and the necessary preparations could be initiated. For goodness' sake, let us wake up to the fact that at times our public servants must be our public servants and do what the House of Commons requires, and not have to consider the difficulties but, rather, consider the service they should provide to the House of Commons and to the electorate in general.
11.30 p.m.
Nobody in this debate has defended the Government's position. The Government say, "You shall have a free vote to decide how the matter will be dealt with". Therefore, let them listen to the views of hon. Members and not to the views of the Whips, whose job is to marshal people into the Division Lobby to defend the indefensible.
I make an appeal, not just on behalf of my constituents, but on behalf of the holiday makers who come to my constituency. In the past four elections I have been inundated in my constituency office by people on holiday who have said, "We did not realise that we would not be able to vote. We are on holiday. How do we get our postal votes? Why, because we are on holiday, do we not have the right to vote?" I advised them of their legal rights. If people were combining business with holiday, I said that they had to decide whether they had the right to apply for a postal vote. This took an immense amount of time and I had to deal with many annoyed people who felt that they had as much right to vote as anybody else.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: Has the hon. Gentleman been as clamant in the past on behalf of holiday makers about giving them the opportunity of postal votes at General Elections as he is now in respect of this somewhat extraordinary poll? Does he agree that this is a unique procedure which is seriously undermining parliamentary government and that we do not wish to compound the injury being done to the House by sudden changes in normal franchises and in alterations of existing electoral law piggy-backing on the special referendum poll? This is not the way to go about changing electoral arrangements.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Members—I do not say this in any sense of rebuke—will not make interventions which are almost the length of speeches.

Mr. Emery: I am delighted to bring the hon. Gentleman up to date. I refer him to the first Early Day Motion of the 1970 Parliament which stood in my name and those of a hundred other right hon. and hon. Members which advocated that votes for holiday makers should be allowed at all elections.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): Why did not the hon. Gentleman do something about it?

Mr. Emery: I am delighted to deal with the intervention of the Minister of State standing behind the Speaker's Chair. There may be a number of things that he wishes to do as a member of the Government which he cannot do. Let us not have the childish behaviour reflected in that sort of intervention from that sort of Minister.
I have been consistent about this matter. I agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) that the referendum is a nonsense and will undermine the parliamentary structure. I said so at the beginning of my speech. But if we are to have it—and I am against it—let us make it as thorough and efficient as is humanly possible. That is what I am arguing and what it is right that Members should argue.
As yet, no argument has been mounted by anybody in this debate to try to explain why the status quo should be

kept. No one has spoken in support of the view taken by the Government. All the argument is on the side of those who wish to give the vote to people who are on holiday. If that is the case, and if the Government are supposedly as pliant on matters of the referendum as they certainly put out to the public, let them bow to the wishes of the House of Commons on this matter without having to try to use a three-line Whip as the only way to make their point of view prevail tonight.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I wish to make one or two brief points. Who is likely to be away early in June? If anyone who has had experience in local government work puts his mind to the question, he will realise that that is usually the time when hotels offer a reduced price to old people and to the disabled. My old people's welfare association takes advantage of literally hundreds of holidays which are offered at seaside resorts to old people if they go in the early part of the season while the machinery is being cranked up. Therefore—point one—it is the elderly and the disabled who will be disfranchised if the Government persist in their action.

Mr. George Cunningham: The disabled can vote now.

Mr.Finsberg: The hon. Member made his speech. Perhaps he will remain in a sedentary position in silence.
It is necessary perhaps to examine one other point which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) raised—and having been shot down he retired, but he has come back again. I refer to the nonsense, if I may so put it, of the witnessed vote. If he casts his mind back to the occasion when he was able to go into a polling booth, if he had his glasses with him, as I sometimes need them, he will remember that there is a notice inside the booth. If my memory is correct, it would tell him that when he has voted he should fold his paper and, before placing it in the box, display it to the presiding officer, folded closed, to show that he is putting a ballot paper in the box. There is no need, and it is impossible, to show what is on the paper.
In my view, that is no different from a ballot paper which comes through the


post. As hon. Members will know, a separate envelope is used for the form. I see no reason to suppose why anybody should disclose how he has voted in a postal ballot, because the voter will close the ballot paper over and all that the witness has to certify is that that is the person—not how he has voted or even if he has voted, but that that is the person. I should have thought there would be no objection to that.
I am worried about accepting the point which was belaboured by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) about the necessity of witnessing an application for a holiday vote. The hon. Member was at great pains to say "Let us have witnesses." He left it to the Government. I hope I am not being uncharitable, but if the Government are being as flexible as the Lord President usually is they will go on to say that everyone who has a holiday vote must have it witnessed by the Lord President in person. I do not think that that would meet with his agreement or that of the House of Commons.
It is not right to deny this right to persons who have to go on holiday and who wish to vote. It is perhaps fair to remind the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) that it was his party which talked out a Bill in the last Session, which had been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), which was designed to give a postal vote to persons on holiday. There again, consistency is on the Conservative benches.
The obstinacy may not lie with the Lord President. One of the most obstinate, backward and stubborn Departments of State is the Home Office, as anyone who has ever tried to deal with it will know. If it is a matter of altering byelaws the advice is "We must not make a change." If it is a matter of bringing up to date company law, the advice Is "We must not do it." If it is a question of bringing up to date election laws, the advice is "We should not do it, Minister. It is very dangerous." I do not believe that this Committee should take any notice.
I have said more than once that if the will of the Committee is that there should be, for example, a postal vote for people on holiday, and if the Lord President wants to say at some time that such a

suggestion has defects, so be it. He must know that if he is working to the deadline of 5th June and this Committee puts into the Bill the right to vote by post in a way that he does not like, his Office and the Home Office will have plenty of time to put it right when the Bill goes to another place.
If we do not put such a provision in the Bill, placing upon the right hon. Gentleman the responsibility of getting it right, if we let it go by and hope that something will be done, I do not believe that those hopes—

Mr. Sandelson: I intervene again simply to correct a point on which I think the hon. Gentleman may have misrepresented my views. May I make it clear that in principle I am not opposed to postal votes or some other arrangements being made for the benefit of holiday makers. What I am strongly opposed to is any such arrangements being made for the purpose of this referendum. The Speaker's Conference and similar bodies are the proper channel through which such matters should be discussed, and then determined by the House in more normal circumstances.

Mr. Finsberg: I made a mistake in giving way to the hon. Member because clearly he has completely misunderstood what was being said. All I was trying to do was to follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). The inconsistency comes from Labour Members.
There is no need for any new forms to be printed to enable postal voting for holiday makers to take place. Let us take part in the "Save a Tree" campaign and publish a full-page advertisement telling anyone who wishes to vote by post because they will be on holiday to alter the wording on the form which reads:
I shall be away on business.
to read:
I shall be away on holiday.
It is administratively simple. The decision is for the returning officer. If the Lord President is genuine, and I believe he is, in wanting to get the maximum number of votes for the referendum he ought to give way to the wishes of the Committee:

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. May I at this stage appeal to all hon. Members to be as brief as possible? There is a substantial number of hon. Members who would like to get to their beds before 5th June, let alone go on holiday.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I think, Sir Myer, that many hon. Members will welcome what you have said, and I shall therefore be brief.
In the October election my constituency, like that of Dundee West, was substantially affected by holiday voters. The Government chose to hold the election during a trade week, when factory after factory had shut down and many people were away on holiday. They were bitter because they did not get a vote which they expected to get as of right.
We have to realise that people regard a vote not just as a privilege but as a function which it is their civic duty to carry out. A number of persons approached me, as they did other candidates, about what they considered to be the injustice of not being able to vote, and I pledged that I should do what I could to try to get postal votes for people who were on holiday. I did this not because of the pressure that was brought to bear on me, but because I believe in the principle that people should be allowed to vote wherever possible.
If we concede the principle of a postal vote for a person who is away on business, there is no reason why we should not concede the vote to somebody who is away on holiday. It is puritannical hypocrisy that a person has to prove that he is away for some good reason before he can get a vote. A holiday is a necessary recreation, and a person should be entitled to a vote if he is away on holiday. It has been said that people cannot easily change their holidays. I see no reason in principle why they should not be given a vote. It is not simple to be away on holiday, and if it is not simple those who are on holiday should be given a vote. Certain administrative objections have been made, but I have no sympathy with them. It is the duty of the administrators to take care of a situation such as this.
We are to have a referendum. Whether we like it or not, it is a method of consulting the people of this country, and

if we are to consult them we should do the job thoroughly and consult all those whose names are on the electoral register. I suggest that it is the job of the administrators to adapt their routine business to allow these voting papers to go out to all those concerned. I do not think that, with the referendum being held in June, there will be an overwhelming demand for postal votes, but I agree that if it was held in July or August during trade weeks those responsible for organising the postal votes might be overwhelmed. I do not accept that there are any practical objections to what is proposed, and I doubt very much whether the Government could come up with one that would hold water.

Mr. Goodhart: Inevitably, there has been a certain amount of dispute about how many voters will be disfranchised if no postal votes are allowed to holiday makers for the referendum on 5th June. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) talked of a few hundred thousand. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) referred to a possible 3 million. It has authoritatively been suggested by the travel trade that the number of people likely to be away on 5th June is about equal to the electorate of Northern Ireland.
By chance, Northern Ireland is the one part of the United Kingdom where a major referendum has already been held. It is worth remembering that at that referendum on the border postal votes were handed out to all those who applied for them. As it turned out, about 16 per cent. of the electorate did so.
On 10th May 1974, in the debate on a Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department reported on the effect of postal voting in the Northern Ireland referendum. She said this:
It is true that in the Northern Ireland elections last year—at the Border poll, the local government elections and the Assembly elections—an experiment was made with giving a postal vote to anyone who applied. This was done because the number of polling stations was restricted in the Province, and because voting in person might have involved personal danger. That was one of the main reasons for its introduction. The closing date for applications was extended by 11 days, and in the event about 16 per cent. of electors applied.


I understand that, on the whole, the experiment was a success and that there were few reports of abuse."—[Official Report, 10th May 1974; Vol. 873, c. 784.]
Therefore, in the one referendum that we have had postal voting for those on holiday and, indeed, even for those who were not on holiday but who for one reason or another did not wish to go to the polling station in person was allowed and was admitted by this Government to have been a success. Therefore, if the Government do not allow postal votes for holiday makers it will be a clear sign that this is not because of theoretical, philosophical or administrative difficulties but because they do not want the 2 million people who will be away on holiday to cast their votes.

Mr. Onslow: I want briefly to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has said. In reply to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), I would say that, as the evidence is in favour of this method of postal voting being extended to referenda, if he wishes us to take the view that there is a danger of corruption inherent in it he should tell us who he thinks will do the corrupting in the unique context of the referendum which is to take place on 5th June. As the hon. Gentleman made no attempt to be specific on that point, we can disregard most of what he said.
I only wish that when we debated this point on 10th May of last year I had been fortunate enough to secure the support of some of those hon. Members opposite who have now courageously spoken out in favour of postal voting.

Mr. Edward Short: There are 10 amendments on the Notice Paper to extend postal voting facilities to those on holiday on 5th June. I shall refer to some of these amendments in more detail later; but before that I want to make some general comments.
First, Mr. Speaker's Conference in the 1964–66 Parliament considered and rejected the extension of postal voting in elections to those on holiday.
The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has just told us that the Conservative Party has not dragged its feet on this question. However, neither the Conservative Government of 1951–64 nor the Conservative Government of 1970–74

took any action on the matter. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), who spoke on this question, was the Under-Secretary at the Home Department in that latter period. No doubt when the Conservatives had responsibility they found the official advice of the Home Office Electoral Advisory Committee as persuasive as their predecessors had done.
This is not the advice of the Home Department. It is the advice of the experts who have to organise elections throughout the country—the Home Office Electoral Advisory Committee.
Postal and proxy voting fell within the terms of reference of the last Speaker's Conference but had not been considered when the conference was interrupted by the Dissolution in February of last year. They will certainly fall to be re-examined when the conference is re-convened. I suggest that Mr. Speaker's Conference is the correct forum to consider this and to advise the House of Commons on a matter of this kind.

Mr. Emery: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman at the start of his speech, but he has used an argument which he obviously thinks is compelling on the advice the Home Office committees have given about not allowing postal votes to those on holiday in the previous elections. He said that that advice has been followed by Governments of both parties. As I understand it—and I said that I had looked at the matter fairly closely—the basis of that advice was the administrative difficulties between the date of the announcement of the election and the poll. Those difficulties do not apply in the referendum. Surely, therefore, it would be wrong to use that argument and that advice in dealing with the referendum.

Mr. Short: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I shall deal with that point in great detail.
It has been said that while the Speaker's Conference and the House have agreed that the postal vote for holiday makers is not appropriate at elections, it is a different matter in a referendum, and that everything should be done to enable the greatest possible number of people on the register to vote on a matter of unique national importance. The argument is


that as the referendum is being held at the beginning of June, at the beginning of the holiday season, special consideration should be given to those on holiday.
I have sympathy with that argument, but I believe that it contains a number of misconceptions. First, while the referendum is certainly unique and of great importance to the future of the country, it would be hard to argue that the issues at stake in the General Elections of 1970 or 1974 were not also very important for the country, and in that respect the referendum is not unique.
We want the largest possible poll in the referendum, but not at the expense of abandoning our well-tried electoral procedures in favour of a device which has been rejected as undesirable and impracticable both by the body that represents the electoral registration officers and the Speaker's Conference. I repeat what I said in our debate on the previous amendments, that if we abandon well-tried electoral procedures lightly we shall put at serious risk the national acceptance of the referendum result. We must at all costs secure the widest possible national acceptance of the result.

Mr. Douglas Hurd: Following that argument, does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the exclusion of large numbers of our fellow citizens unnecessarily from the referendum will in itself cast doubt on the outcome?

Mr. Short: That is a point of view, and I respect it. But I sincerely believe that if we abandon electoral procedures which the electorate understands and trusts, and which are among the best in the world, we put at risk the credibility and national acceptance of the result.

Mr. Hooley: I cannot follow my right hon. Friend's argument about abandoning well-tried procedures. The postal vote has been a long-established procedure, which people understand. We are simply asking that certain people who have not so far enjoyed it should do so.

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend has made his point. He made a long speech and I did not interrupt him.
That brings me to some of the practical considerations to point out what would be involved in allowing a postal vote on

5th June to those who claim that they will be on holiday on that day. Applications would have to be considered individually and granted by returning officers, who would have no power to begin that work until the referendum order had been made. The order is to be made under powers given in the Bill, so it cannot be made until the Bill receives the Royal Assent. Therefore, the earliest date for the order to be made, if we can keep to our tight timetable, is 14th May.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Runcorn, I think ignored this fact in his speech. In other words—
12 midnight.

Mr. Carlisle: The Lord President is saying that because the Government have got in a mess with their timetable and have brought in a Bill too close to the date of the referendum, many people are, as a result, going to be disfranchised.

Mr. Short: I do not accept that about the date of 5th June. The returning officers locally would have no power to begin this work until the order has been made, and the earliest date for making the order is 14th May. The additional work would all have to be done within the normal timetable for existing postal votes in a General Election. Naturally, it would—

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: rose—

Mr. Short: The hon. and learned Member has not been here long, but I will give way to him.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I have been here the whole time and I did not catch the Chairman's eye.
The Lord President's point is simply not true, because there would be no difficulty in the appropriate and requisite forms to implement a decision of the House of Commons taken tonight so that they would be ready before 14th May, ready to carry into effect the rest of the procedure.

Mr. Short: I am advised that local officers running the election would have no power to do that until the order has been made, so the work would all have to be done within the normal timetable.
In the case of holiday makers abroad, whom it would be unfair to exclude, a separate nomination of a proxy would then have to be made; and his or her willingness to serve would need to be established by the returning officer before the appointment could be confirmed. Next, the absent voting holiday makers would have to be added to the list of postal and proxy voters which must he compiled by registration officers. Postal ballot papers would then have to be issued to holiday makers giving addresses in the United Kingdom; and finally the resulting votes opened and checked before ballot boxes could be dispatched for the count. This is a formidable catalogue, and it will be clear to the Committee that the additional and novel burden falling on electoral registration officers would be severe.

Sir Raymond Gower: Oh.

Mr. Short: It is true, if the hon. Member listened to the catalogue I gave. It is particularly true in Scotland, where the new authorities do not take over until 16th May, two days after the earliest date for making an order and less than a week before the closing date for applications for postal votes from those entitled to them under the Bill as it stands, 12 working days, including Saturdays, but excluding Sundays and bank holidays and the working day immediately before and immediately after the bank holiday in the case of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, before polling day. In effect this means that in England and Wales there would be only five clear days between the making of the order and the closing date for postal vote applications. In Scotland with no bank holiday in this period there would be eight.
I have been asked whether it is possible. I believe this is a quite impossible timetable, particularly as what we are really considering is postal votes on demand, since there is no way of checking them.
I have considered whether what is sought in both the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) could be done. In the case of his previous amendment, I thought it possibly could be done, with a fair amount of chaos.
In the case of these amendments, I do not think it can, in time to have the referendum on 5th June.

Sir Raymond Gower: One cannot object to the right hon. Gentleman's timetable, but it appears that 5th June is regarded as sacrosanct. Why should it be sacrosanct? Why cannot it be put back a week or a fortnight?

Mr. Short: I am coming to the date.
It is no answer to say "Very well, postpone the referendum by a week or two". One of the factors that led us to select 5th June was that it is after the spring bank holiday week and before the traditional industrial and other holidays begin. By 12th June the North Staffordshire miners will be on holiday. By 19th June school holidays in Glasgow will have begun. By 26th June, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) told us, the June wakes weeks in Lancashire will have started, notably in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I thought that I might have had a word of credit from the hon. Gentleman, but I did not get one. In the debate on the referendum White Paper he urged us to avoid that week, and we have avoided it.
As the number away on holiday will increase steadily throughout June, so the burden on the electoral officers will increase. To all these reasons for not delaying the poll I must add the widespread feeling in the House of Commons and in the country that the uncertainty that hangs over our membership of the EEC should be removed by holding the referendum at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Evelyn King: rose—

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman has not been present throughout the debate, but I will give way to him.

Mr. Evelyn King: Are not the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman describes self-created? The Government decided on what date to introduce the Bill. The Government decided on what date to hold the referendum. The Government could have made the timetable to suit their convenience. The right hon. Gentleman puts up the timetable and then says that it is impossible.

Mr. Short: I have been explaining why we selected 5th June. The selection of any week beyond that makes the problem much worse.
I will return to the practical difficulties by giving the Committee three examples. First, the effect of increasing the 12-day period that I have mentioned in order to give more time for the processing of postal votes for holiday makers would penalise those who fall ill after the earlier closing date for applications. All Members of Parliament who canvass and pick up postal votes know that many come in on the last day or two. To disfranchise some of the bedridden for the sake of the holiday makers would be very rough justice.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is perfectly possible to have a different qualifying date for those who fall ill and those who go on holiday?

Mr. Short: That would be an additional complication which would immediately rule out the matter completely.
Secondly, holiday addresses are often transitory. [Laughter.] What about the holiday maker who goes on holiday in a caravan? Another effect of this extension would be a large distribution of postal ballot papers, readily identifiable as such, to hotels, boarding houses, caravan and camping sites and the like. This system would therefore be wide open to considerable abuse.
Thirdly, a person claiming a postal or proxy vote because of illness or employment has to produce evidence which the electoral registration officer can check. But a claim to a postal vote because of absence on holiday would be impossible to verify in the very short time available. This extension, therefore, would virtually amount to granting postal voting on demand.
Apart from the insuperable difficulties which do not go away merely because my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) says they do not exist, all the factors that I have mentioned would be certain to lead not only to errors and anomalies but, much more important, to widespread complaints that people had been improperly allowed or denied a postal vote. The Committee will have noticed that as a result of the

representations made on Second Reading I added my name to an amendment to delete paragraph (b) of Clause 4. It is quite likely that because of that some of the complaints would be pursued in the courts, thus casting some doubt on the validity of the certified result of the referendum.
I come now to the terms of the amendments on the Order Paper. They are very varied and sometimes in conflict with each other. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) would give a vote to
all those on holiday or otherwise disenfranchised in a normal General Election.
I point out that that would include criminals, children, the Royal Family, the lot. The Liberal Party, whose amendment is elegant in wording but obscure in intention, apparently would give a vote to anyone on holiday abroad or at home, on the register or not, unless he happened to be a Peer. That is the effect of the Liberal amendment. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and his colleagues would extend absent voting facilities to anyone
who may be absent from home on the day the referendum is held …
That is postal voting on demand, to which I have referred.
The amendments in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper and 16 of his colleagues would give postal votes to people
unable or likely to be unable to go to the polling station because they will be outside the constituency on holiday …
I do not want to make too much of the rather curious phrase
outside the constituency".
The constituency for the referendum is the United Kingdom, and a court might well hold that the effect of the amendment would be to give a postal vote to those on holiday on the Costa Brava but to deny it to those in Margate or Blackpool.
On a narrow interpretation of "constituency" the amendment would plainly deny a postal vote to someone who lived at one end of a constituency and who spent his holiday at the other end. Let us take, for example, the Leader of the Liberal Party. The right hon. Gentleman resides in rural North Devon. He might want to spend his holiday at Ilfracombe on polling day. If he did he would not


be able to get a vote as he would still he in his constituency. He could not get a vote if these amendments were carried or if one of them were carried.

Mr. Hooley: It seems that my right hon. Friend has found no technical objection to my amendment. Indeed, he has not even mentioned it. Will he explain in what way it is out of order?

Mr. Short: I cannot believe that my hon. Friend has been listening to me. At least half of my speech has been concerned with the technical difficulties involved in carrying out his amendment.
The amendment, if carried, would place a dangerously heavy burden on those who have to organise the poll. It will be impossible to check or to prevent the abuse of postal votes that are issued to holiday makers. It will deny the over-riding importance we have always attached to the stringent limitation of the potential for abuse in our electoral procedures. In effect it will endanger the whole exercise of the referendum in providing postal votes for the small group of people who can register their applications in the five-day period available. The amendment is impracticable, it puts the credibility of the referendum at risk, and I ask the Committee to reject it.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. John Peyton: About two hours ago—it may seem longer to you, Sir Myer—the Committee, at the Government's behest, and as a result of a rather fanciful argument adduced by the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, to the effect that it would be a leap in the dark, rejected the idea of giving votes to British subjects who worked and resided abroad.
The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council gave further garnish to that argument by saying that it might just have been possible at the price of a fair amount of chaos. I do not believe that decision—which I believe was a lamentable one—is sufficient grounds for the Committee to make a similarly mean decision in respect of holiday makers who wish to vote on the referendum. I do not believe we have had any argument at all to persuade us to this effect.
In my view and experience, the Home Office is perhaps not the most flexible department. It is a department to which the answer "No" comes fairly naturally. This was also the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). However, the Lord President of the Council rightly said a few minutes ago that this was not a matter for which the Home Office was immediately responsible. It was a matter for an electoral advisory committee—a committee of experts. I wonder how often that committee is reshuffled.
The hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) made it clear that in his view there was no argument in principle against his amendment. I very much hope he will carry that view to the obvious conclusion to show that he believes his conviction is right.
It is time we faced the fact that there is nothing wrong or wicked in going on holiday, and that there are no grounds in principle for disqualifying anybody from voting on that score. The fact that we are dealing with a one-off referendum, something that is unique, need not bother anybody in terms of its effect on General Elections.
We were impressed by the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Sheffield. Heeley (Mr. Hooley) who described himself first as an ex-administrator and then, with characteristic modesty, as a first-class administrator. From that lofty position he gave his judgment that there was no possible administrative reason why this amendment could not be passed.
In ordinary circumstances, and at ordinary hours of the day, I would be tempted to make a quite long speech, but I shall resist the temptation tonight. However, it would be wrong for me not to refer to one or two points made by the Lord President of the Council. He reminded the Committee that we had not had a Speaker's Conference to approve postal votes—nor have we had a Speaker's Conference to deal with the question of a referendum. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be heard to adduce that argument and then proceed to bring in an even worse argument—namely, that it would be wrong if now we were to abandon well-tried electoral procedures which the


electorate understand and trust. Such contacts as I have had with the electorate recently lead me to believe that they do not regard the referendum as tried and certainly are not prepared to put trust in it.
The Lord President took undue risks with his case when he brought forward that argument. The single practical argument of delay—if the right hon. Gentle-man had put that forward alone—might have weighed with me. However, when he completed the sandwich by referring to the possibility of disfranchising the bedridden and the sick, I thought that he had departed into the realms of fantasy.
We must have some pity for the right hon. Gentleman in his unhappiness, be-cause he then referred, as if to add further splendour to such a rubbishy argument, to the difficulty of establishing holiday addresses. There then followed a piece of real news. He said that holiday addresses were often transitory, especially when holidays were taken in caravans. I realise that at this time of night the acumen of hon. Members is not at its sharpest. Nevertheless, hon. Members would have been able to perceive that

point without being reminded of it by the right hon. Gentleman. I am certain that I command the agreement of the Committee when I say that those points add nothing to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman.

The Opposition did not put down an amendment on this subject. We listened carefully to the argument. The overwhelming weight of the argument was in favour of conceding postal votes for the purpose of the referendum only. The right hon. Gentleman said how difficult that would be. The Government should have thought of that a long time ago. The Prime Minister should have thought of that point before he came up with this rubbishy idea to get himself out of his own, home-made, self-inflicted difficulties.

I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends, even if they had any doubts, as I had, before, that on this occasion they should go into the Lobby in support of the amendment.

Question put. That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 201. Noes 250.

Division No. 177.]
AYES
[12.24 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hicks, Robert


Arnold, Tom
Emery, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Holland, Philip


Banks, Robert
Eyre, Reginald
Hordern, Peter


Beith, A. J.
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Benyon, W.
Fairgrieve, Russell
Howell, David (Guildford)


Biffen, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Hurd, Douglas


Blaker, Peter
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Marcus
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Freud, Clement
James, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Brittan, Leon
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Jessel, Toby


Brotherton, Michael
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Glyn, Dr Alan
Jopling, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Mick
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Buck, Antony
Goodhart, Philip
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Budgen, Nick
Goodhew, Victor
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Bulmer, Esmond
Gorst, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gow. Ian (Eastbourne)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gray, Hamish
Knox, David


Churchill, W. S.
Griffiths Eldon
Lamont, Norman


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Lane, David


Clegg, Walter
Grist, Ian
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cockcroft, John
Grylls, Michael
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Cope, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Lawrence, Ivan


Cormack, Patrick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Lawson, Nigel


Contain, A. P.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Le Marchant, Spencer


Crawford, Douglas
Hannam, John
Lloyd, Ian


Crouch, David
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Loveridge, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Havers, Sir Michael
Luce, Richard


Drayson, Burnaby
Hawkins, Paul
Macfarlane, Neil


Durant, Tony
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
MacGregor, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Heseltine, Michael
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)




McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Raison, Timothy
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Madel, David
Rathbone, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mates, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Tapsell, Peter


Mather, Carol
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Mawby, Ray
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Tebbit, Norman


Mayhew, Patrick
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Mills, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian
Townsend, Cyril D.


Miscampbell, Norman
Rilklnd, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Tugendhat, Christopher


Monro, Hector
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Montgomery, Fergus
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Viggers, Peter


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Wakeham, John


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Mudd, David
Sainsbury, Tim
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Neave, Airey
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walters, Dennis


Nelson, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Weatherill, Bernard


Neubert, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, John


Newton, Tony
Shersby, Michael
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Normanton, Tom
Silvester, Fred
Wiggin, Jerry


Nott, John
Sims, Roger
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Onslow, Cranley
Skeet, T. H. H.
Winterton, Nicholas


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Page, Rt hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Pardoe, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Younger, Hon George


Parkinson, Cecil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)



Pattie, Geoffrey
Sproat, Iain
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Penhaligon, David
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Mark Carlisle and


Percival, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Michael Marshall.


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stanley, John



Pink, R. Bonner
Steel, David (Roxburgh)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Anderson, Donald
Deakins, Eric
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Archer, Peter
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Heffer, Eric S.


Armstrong, Ernest
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Horam, John


Ashton, Joe
Delargy, Hugh
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Atkinson, Norman
Dempsey, James
Huckfield, Les


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bates, Alf
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bean, R. E.
Dunnett, Jack
Hunter, Adam


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Bidwell, Sydney
Eadie, Alex
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bishop, E. S.
Edelman, Maurice
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edge, Geoff
Janner, Greville


Boardman H.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Booth, Albert
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
English, Michael
John, Brynmor


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Ennals, David
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Boyden, James (Bash Auck)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Evans, John (Newton)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Buchan, Norman
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Buchanan, Richard
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Judd, Frank


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kaufman, Gerald


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Flannery, Martin
Kerr, Russell


Campbell, Ian
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
Ford, Ben
Lambie, David


Cant, R. B.
Forrester, John
Lamborn, Harry


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lamond, James


Cartwright, John
Freeson, Reginald
Leadbitter, Ted


Clemitson, Ivor
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lee, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lester, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
George, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Gilbert, Dr John
Litterick, Tom


Corbett, Robin
Ginsburg, David
Loyden, Eddie


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Golding, John
Luard, Evan


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Gould, Bryan
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Crawshaw, Richard
Graham, Ted
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Cronin, John
Giant, George (Morpeth)
McElhone, Frank


Cryer, Bob
Grant, John (Islington C)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Groton, Bruce
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hardy, Peter
Maclennan Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Madden, Max


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hatton, Frank
Magee, Bryan







Mahon, Simon
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Marks, Kenneth
Richardson. Miss Jo
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Meacher, Michael
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tierney, Sydney


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn
Tinn, James


Mikardo, Ian
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tomlinson, John


Millan, Bruce
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Torney, Tom


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Rooker, J. W
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Rose, Paul B.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, lichen)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Molyneaux, James
Rowlands, Ted
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ryman, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sandelson, Neville
Ward, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Sedgemore, Brian
Watkins, David


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Selby, Harry
Weetch, Ken


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wellbeloved, James


Newens, Stanley
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Noble, Mike
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
White, James (Pollok)


Oakes, Gordon
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Whitlock, William


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Ovenden, John
Small, William
Williams. Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Owen, Dr David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Palmer, Arthur
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Park, George
Spriggs, Leslie
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Parry, Robert
Stallard, A. W.
Woodall, Alec


Pearl, Rt Hon Fred
Stoddart, David
Woof, Robert


Perry, Ernest
Stott, Roger
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Phipps, Dr Colin
Strang, Gavin
Young, David (Bolton E)


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.



Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Swain, Thomas
Mr. Laurie Pavitt and


Price, William (Rugby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No.26, in page 1, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 and insert:
'(4) Her Majesty may by Order in Council—'.

'(4A) An Order in Council under this section may make or enable the Secretary of State to make special provision with respect to persons, or any description of persons, who are members of the forces (as defined in section 46 of the Representation of the People Act 1949) or spouses of such members, and may do so differently with respect to different cases; and any provision so made—


(a) may permit persons to whom it applies to vote in the referendum notwithstanding that they are not duly registered under the Representation of the People Acts, and, if they have or have had an address in the United Kingdom, notwithstanding that the conditions of those Acts as to residence are not satisfied; and


(b) may enable persons to whom it applies to vote at a date earlier than that appointed under subsection (4)(a) of this section and may also enable them to vote at a polling station set up in accordance with that provision or by post'.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (b) in line 3, leave out
'as defined in section 46 of the Representation of the People Act 1949)'.—[Mr Percival.]

No. 29, in page 1, line 23, leave out 'him' and insert 'Her'.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Amendment proposed: No. 31, in page 2, line 4, at end insert:

Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 192, Noes 248.

Division No. 178.]
AYES
[12.37 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard
Carr, Rt Hon Robert


Arnold, Tom
Brittan, Leon
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brotherton, Michael
Churchill, W. S.


Banks, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Beith, A. J.
Bryan, Sir Paul
Clegg, Walter


Bitten, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Cockcroft, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Buck, Antony
Cope, John


Blaker, Peter
Budgen, Nick
Costain, A. P.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Bulmer, Esmond
Crouch, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Carlisle, Mark
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James




Drayson, Burnaby
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Durant, Tony
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rifkind, Malcolm


Emery, Peter
Knox, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Eyre, Reginald
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lane, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Latham, Michael (Mellon)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lawson, Nigel
Sainsbury, Tim


Fox, Marcus
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Freud, Clement
Lloyd, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Loveridge, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Luce, Richard
Shersby, Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon tan (Chesham)
Macfarlane, Nell
Silvester, Fred


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


Glyn, Dr Alan
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Goodhart, Philip
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Goodhew, Victor
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Gorst, John
Mather, Carol
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mawby, Ray
Sproat, Iain


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mayhew, Patrick
Stainton, Keith


Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Griffiths, Eldon
Miscampbell, Norman
Stanley, John


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Grist, tan
Monro, Hector
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Tapsell, Peter


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Tebbit, Norman


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mudd, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Havers, Sir Michael
Neave, Airey
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Hawkins, Paul
Nelson. Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D.


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Neubert, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Heseltine, Michael
Newton, Tony
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hicks, Robert
Normanton, Tom
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Higgins, Terence L.
Nott, John
Viggers, Peter


Holland, Philip
Onslow, Cranley
Wakeham, John


Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Walters, Dennis


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pardoe, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Parkinson, Cecil
Wells, John


Hurd, Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Penhaligon, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Percival, Ian
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


James, David
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Pink, R. Bonner
Younger, Hon George


Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt Hon James



Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Adam Butler and


Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Mr Laurie Pavitt.


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Anderson, Donald
Campbell, Ian
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Archer, Peter
Canavan, Dennis
Dempsey, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Cant, R. B.
Doig, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dormand, J. D.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cartwright, John
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Atkinson, Norman
Clemitson, Ivor
Dunn, James A.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Dunnett, Jack


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Eadie, Alex


Bates, Alf
Corbett, Robin
Edelman, Maurice


Bean, R. E.
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Edge, Geoff


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bidwell, Sydney
Crawshaw, Richard
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bishop, E. S.
Cronin, John
English, Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cryer, Bob
Ennals, David


Boardman H.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Booth, Albert
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whlteh)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davidson, Arthur
Evans, John (Newton)


Bottomtey, Rt Hon Arthur
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Flannery, Martin


Buchan, Norman
Deakins, Eric
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Buchanan, Richard
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Ford, Ben







Forrester, John
McElhone, Frank
Ryman, John


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Sandelson, Neville


Freeson, Reginald
McGuire, Michael Once)
Sedgemore, Brian


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Selby, Harry


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maclennan Robert
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


George, Bruce
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Gilbert, Dr John
McNamara, Kevin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Ginsburg, David
Madden, Max
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Goiding, John
Magee, Bryan
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Gould, Bryan
Mahon, Simon
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Graham, Ted
Marks, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marquand, David
Skinner, Dennis


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Small, William


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Hardy, Peter
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Stallard, A. W.


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Millan, Bruce
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hatton, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stott, Roger


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Strang, Gavin


Healey, RI Hon Denis
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Heifer, Eric S.
Molyneaux, James
Swain, Thomas


Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Huckfield, Les
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Newens, Stanley
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Noble, Mike
Tierney, Sydney


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon
Tinn, James


Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric
Tomlinson, John


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
O'Halloran, Michael
Torney, Tom


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Janner, Greville
Ovenden, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Owen, Dr David
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur
Ward, Michael


Jonn, Brynmor
Park, George
Watkins, David


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parry, Robert
Weetch, Ken


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Perry, Ernest
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Phipps, Dr Colin
White, James (Pollok)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Whitlock, William


Judd, Frank
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wigley, Dafydd


Kaufman, Gerald
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Kerr, Russell
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lambie, David
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Lamborn, Harry
Richardson. Miss Jo
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Lamond, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lee, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woodall, Alec


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Woof, Robert


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Litterick, Tom
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Loyden, Eddie
Rooker, J. W.



Luard, Evan
Rose, Paul B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (a), in line 4, after 'spouses' insert
'and any adult dependant having a right of abode in the United Kingdom as defined in the Immigration Act 1971'.—[Mr. Goodhart.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 190, Noes 248.

Division No. 179.]
AYES
[12.49 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Arnold, Tom
Brittan, Leon
Churchill, W. S.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brotherton, Michael
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Banks, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clegg, Walter


Beith, A. J.
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cockcroft, John


Benyon, W.
Buchanan-Smith, Mick
Cope, John


Biffen, John
Buck, Antony
Costain, A. P.


Biggs-Davison, John
Budgen, Nick
Crouch, David


Blaker, Peter
Bulmer, Esmond
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Drayson, Burnaby


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Durant, Tony




Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Emery, Peter
Knox, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Eyre, Reginald
Lamont, Norman
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lane, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Fairgrieve, Russell
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lawson, Nigel
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fox, Marcus
Lloyd, Ian
Royle, Sir Anthony


Freud, Clement
Loveridge, John
Sainsbury, Tim


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Macfarlane, Neil
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gilmour, Rt Hon lan (Chesham)
MacGregor, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shersby, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Silvester, Fred


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Madel, David
Sims, Roger


Goodhart, Philip
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Goodhew, Victor
Mather, Carol
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mayhew, Patrick
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman
Sproat, Iain


Griffiths, Eldon
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stainton, Keith


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Monro, Hector
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanley, John


Grylls, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hannam, John
Mudd, David
Tapsell, Peter


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Havers, Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Hawkins, Paul
Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Newton, Tony
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Jewton)


Heseltine, Michael
Normanton, Tom
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley
Trotter, Neville


Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Tugendhat, Christopher


Holland, Philip
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Viggers, Peter


Hordern, Peter
Pardoe, John
Wakeham, John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Cecil
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Penhallgon, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Hurd, Douglas
Percival, tan
Wells, John


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Jerry


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pink, R. Bonner
Winterton, Nicholas


James, David
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Jessel, Toby
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Younger, Hon George


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ralson, Timothy



Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rathbone, Tim
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jopling, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Mr. Adam Butler and


Joseph, RI Hon Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Spencer L. Merchant.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Canavan, Dennis
Dormand, J. D.


Anderson, Donald
Cant, R. B.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Archer, Peter
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunn, James A.


Armstrong, Ernest
Cartwright, John
Dunned, Jack


Ashton, Joe
Clemitson, Ivor
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwynelh


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Eadle, Alex


Atkinson, Norman
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Edelman, Maurice


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Edge, Geoff


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Corbett, Robin
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
English, Michael


Bates, Alf
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Ennals, David


Bean, R. E.
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cronin, John
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cryer, Bob
Evans, John (Newton)


Bishop, E. S.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Boardman H.
Davidson, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Booth, Albert
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Flannery, Martin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ford, Ben


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Forrester, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Deakins, Eric
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Freeson, Reginald


Buchan, Norman
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Buchanan, Richard
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dempsey, James
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ian
Doig, Peter
Gilbert, Dr John







Ginsburg, David
McNamara, Kevin
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Golding, John
Madden, Max
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Gould, Bryan
Magee, Bryan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Graham, Ted
Mahon, Simon
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marquand, David
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Silverman, Julius


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Hardy, Peter
Meacher, Michael
Small, William


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Hart Rt Hon Judith
Mikardo, Ian
Spearing, Nigel


Hatton, Frank
Milian, Bruce
Spriggs, Leslie


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stallard, A. W.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Helfer, Eric S.
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Stoddart, David


Horam, John
Molyneaux, James
Stott, Roger


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Strang, Gavin


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Huckfield, Les
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Swain, Thomas


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Newens, Stanley
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noble, Mike
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ogden, Eric
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tierney, Sydney


Jackson, Miss Margaret(Lincoln)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Tinn, James


Janner, Greville
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tomlinson, John


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ovenden, John
Torney, Tom


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Park, George
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Park, Robert
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Parry, Laurie
Ward Michael


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Pavitt, Earnest
Walkins, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Weetch, Ken


Judd, Frank
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wellbeloved, James


Kaufman, Gerald
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Kerr, Russell
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
White, James (Pollak)


Killory-Silk, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitlock, William


Lamble, David
Radice, Giles
Wigley, Dafydd


Lamborn, Harry
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Leadbitter, Ted
Richardson. Miss Jo
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Lee, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lessor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Litterick, Tom
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Loyden, Eddie
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Luard, Evan
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Woodall, Alec


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Rooker, J. W.
Woof, Robert


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rose, Paul B.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McElhone, Frank
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Young, David (Bolton E)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rowlands, Ted



McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Ryman, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mackenzie, Gregor
Sandelson, Neville
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Maclennan Robert
Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. John Ellis.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Selby, Harry

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment No. 31 agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 2, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'has' in line 8 and insert—
'(5) An Order in Council under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council under this section: but no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under this section until a draft of the Order'.

No. 35, in page 2, line 11, leave out from 'an' to 'this' in line 12 and insert `Order in Council under'.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Emery: This is the Committee stage of a very important Bill—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. The quieter we are the quicker we may be.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Emery: I have been here all day, which is more than can be said of some hon. Members opposite. I believe that it is important for the Committee to consider the major clause of the Bill, certain aspects of which have not been dealt with because certain amendments


have not been selected. The question arises whether it would have been sensible for the clause to have made it clear that this is to be an advisory referendum. No Government can bind the House of Commons to the outcome of a referendum just by a statement by the Prime Minister. The powers of the House of Commons will indeed be undermined if we ever reach the stage when it is believed that Parliament can be bound by a statement by the Prime Minister which has no formal backing.

The Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is not free to discuss amendments which were not selected.

Mr. Emery: I am delighted by that statement. I did not need to be so reminded. I am not discussing any amendment. I am discussing the overall principle of the clause, which certain amendments might have touched, and the question whether the advisory element is important. It is imperative for hon. Members to realise the situation that the House of Commons will be in if less than a majority of the electorate vote and if by only the smallest majority a decision is carried by the Government against the present wishes of the House of Commons.
Many hon. Members believe that the referendum—I refer to subsection (1), to be in order—undermines the position of the House. The Government's action in not taking the advice of a majority of 226 Members on the White Paper—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that in the debate on the Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill", he must discuss not what should be in the clause but what is in it.

Mr. Emery: If I may run over what I was saying—

The Chairman: That the hon. Gentleman certainly may not do, or he will be guilty of tedious repetition.

Mr. Emery: I shall at no time be tedious, Mr. Thomas. To ensure that I am in order, I point out that I am discussing not what is not in the Bill but the interpretation of the words that are in it. Some of us are worried about not only the effect of the clause but the

parliamentary and constitutional problems that it will cause for the country later. Certain hon. Members support the clause and the Bill in general because they will want to use the principle established in the clause for other referenda on other subjects. That principle must undermine the work of the House. Even at this late hour, and at the cost of having to keep a number of hon. Members away from their beds, that should be recorded, and people should understand it.
Time and again approaches will be made to us on other subjects. The Lord's Day Observance Society has been on to me today, urging me to press on many Labour Members that there should be a referendum on the greater observance of the Lord's Day. How foolish shall we get when that sort of argument comes forward because of the action of the clause? It may be a matter of great humour to certain Labour Members, but they should realise that the position of Members of Parliament and the authority of the House are under considerable challenge from many organisations and people outside. Whether we like it or not, the standard and standing of the House are not as high as hon. Members may think, or as is desirable.
When the Government, by Clause 1, go about further undermining the position of the House they do the House a major disservice. In the same way, it has been evident that during this debate there has been an immense pressure on the Government to ensure that the largest possible number of the electorate should be able to record their votes. While the Government have at all times, in words, suggested that it is their wish to ensure that the largest number of people should be encouraged to record their votes, it is interesting that they have not seen fit to be able to interpret the words of the Clause so as to increase that number to the extent that the House has urged that they should.
The statements made by the Minister of State for Defence earlier, suggesting that he would try to ensure that regulations made under the clause should be as wide as possible, show that at one time the Government seemed to be willing to react to the general wishes of hon. Members. The fact that other Ministers have not taken a leaf out of the Minister of


State's book in interpreting the desires of the House on the clause will be a matter for worry and concern to those who will not be able to record their votes.
When we come to the appointed day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can be here for a long time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am happy to go on as long as I can, but I want to suggest that the appointed day has become a stumbling block for the extension of the electorate and for the manner in which the clause can be interpreted by the Government to ensure that the largest number of people go to the poll.
It has been pointed out time and time again by the Leader of the House that the appointed day, because it has to be 5th June, makes it impossible for provisions to be made in this clause. We should have the largest possible electorate voting and the Government should reconsider when the appointed day should be. I strongly urge the Lord President to defer that appointed day for at least 14 days and, if necessary, for longer, so that the largest possible number of people may vote.
1.15 a.m.
Subsection (4)(c) refers to modifications and exceptions which may be specified in the orders. Paragraph (c) would allow the Government, by Order in Council, to meet many of the points put forward by the Opposition, if the Government could be persuaded to overcome their own difficulties.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman's argument is developing into what appears to be a very long speech, my right hon. and hon. Friends might be advised to stay and see out the rest of the Bill.

Mr. Emery: I am delighted to have an interjection from the Patronage Secretary, but it seems to contain a veiled threat. I shall express what I believe to be the feelings of my constituents, not what my Front Bench may think are the wishes of my constituents. I am the interpreter of the wishes of my constituents, and not anyone else in the Committee.
Before I was interrupted, I was arguing that the orders which may be

made under subsection (4)(c) would allow the Government to meet many of the arguments that were made in our previous debates and to meet the desire even of those who are against the referendum to ensure that the largest possible number of people are enabled to vote. It is up to the Government to make clear whether they would consider using the powers contained in paragraph (c) to enable the date to be deferred.
I do not believe that the Lord President is paying attention to what I am saying. In case there is any doubt about that, I shall put it in another way. We are in Committee, and hon. Members have every right to expect their questions to be answered. I ask the Lord President directly whether it is possible, under subsection (4)(c), for him to do what we asked him to do in the debates on previous amendments
.
It is important that the people should realise that the position of civilians who are overseas and working with the Armed Forces rests with the Government. It has been suggested to me by a legal luminary that it would be within the power of the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him".] It might be embarrassing for Labour Members if I named him. It was someone from their side of the House. In fact, it would be within the power of the Government to take specific action.
It is unsatisfactory that we should have to deal with the clause at this hour, particularly in view of the amount of ribaldry that we are getting from Labour Members. They are showing a complete disregard for the points that are being made, because they want to go home to their beds. Their beds are more important to them than the Bill—

The Chairman: Order. There is nothing about beds in the clause.

Mr. Emery: I am certain that there are Labour Members who will bear that point very much in mind. I know that I am being pressed to come to a conclusion, but I am making a point of major importance. Why should the House be pushed into railroading the Bill through its various stages so that the Government can get out of the absurd position which they now occupy? It seems that Labour Members are prepared to treat this matter with laughter and levity. I


do not believe that they are doing any good whatsoever.
The people have no desire for the pro-visions of the clause. They are concerned about the way in which they will be able to vote and the way in which they will be able to make up their minds on this issue. They have said to me time and time again that it is for Members of Parliament to come to decisions. They believe that this matter should have been decided in the normal way in the Chamber and that it should not have been dealt with by means of a referendum. They think that it should have been decided by the House of Commons—

Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North): And Brussels?

Mr. Emery: No, by Members of this House of Commons. The Government had a majority of 226 on their White Paper. It seems that they are now pre-pared to undermine the authority of their majority. I raise these matters because of the strong feelings of my constituents and myself.

The Chairman: Order. Will hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly?

Mr. Emery: What I was saying was that a great many people in the South-West are concerned about the way in which this clause undermines the authority of the House of Commons.

Mr. Gow: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is only in the introductory stage in his remarks, but will he, before he reaches the end of his speech, deal with my point about the consequences of the referendum? I do not wish to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, and perhaps he will deal with this point now—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order in inviting his hon. Friend to be out of order.

Mr. Emery: In no way would I, Mr. Thomas, accept any invitation to be out of order. What I am trying to say to the Committee is that this matter has a much greater importance for the country than the discussion has displayed so far. The clause might have gone through "on the nod", and that surely would not have been right. It is because I feel so strongly on this matter that I seek to raise these points. I have put a direct question to the Lord President about where the powers under the statutory instrument will lie and also about the position of orders in council. I hope that we shall be given a direct answer so that we may get on with the Bill.

The Chairman: The Question is—

Mr. Emery: I am sorry, Mr. Thomas, but I was seeking a reply.

The Chairman: I thought the hon. Gentleman had concluded his speech.

Mr. Emery: I put one direct question—and indeed I think I put it three times—to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. This is the Committee stage, and I hope that I shall have an answer from the Government.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: To avoid the point being put by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) for the fourth or, in-deed, the fifth time, to the extent that his question was comprehensible, the answer is "Yes".

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 209. Noes 3.

Division No.180.]
AYES
[1.29 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Bidwell, Sydney
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Donald
Bishop, E. S.
Cant, R. B.


Archer, Peter
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Armstrong, Ernest
Boardman H.
Cartwright, John


Ashton, Joe
Booth, Albert
Clemitson, Ivor


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)


Atkinson, Norman
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Corbett, Robin


Bates, All
Buchan, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bean, R. E.
Buchanan, Richard
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Crawshaw, Richard


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Campbell, Ian
Cronin, John




Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Janner, Greville
Richardson. Miss Jo


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davidson, Arthur
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, for (Gower)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Deakins, Eric
Judd, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rose, Paul B.


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dempsey, James
Lamble, David
Rowlands, Ted


Doig, Peter
Lamborn, Harry
Sedgemore, Brian


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Selby, Harry


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dunn, James A.
Lee, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dunnett, Jack
Litterick, Tom
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Eadle, Alex
Luard, Evan
Silverman, Julius


Edge, Geoff
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Skinner, Dennis


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McElhone, Frank
Small, William


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ennals, David
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Maclennan Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Evans, John (Newton)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McNamara, Kevin
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Madden, Max
Stoddart, David


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan
Strang, Gavin


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Forrester, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Millan, Bruce
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


George, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thin, James


Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Tomlinson, John


Golding, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Graham, Ted
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker. Terry (Kingswood)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Ward, Michael


Grocott, Bruce
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Watkins, David


Hardy, Peter
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Weetch, Ken


Harper, Joseph
Newens, Stanley
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Noble, Mike
White, James (Pollok)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Hatton, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Horam, John
Ovenden, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Owen, Dr David
Woodall, Alec


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Palmer, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Park, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parry, Robert
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Penhaligon, David



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hunter, Adam
Phipps, Dr Colin
Mr. James Hamilton and


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Mr. Laurie Pavitt.




NOES



Brotherton, Michael




Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)




Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)




TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Peter Emery and




Mr. Ivan Lawrence.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, put accordingly and agreed to.

Mr. Edward Short: As we have made very good progress, and it has been a good-natured debate throughout, I think that we should call it a day. Therefore, I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

PRESTWICK AIRPORT (POLICING)

1.40 a.m.

Mr. David Lambie: The Secretary of State for Scotland has laid before Parliament the Policing of Airports (Prestwick) Order 1975—Statutory Instrument 1975 No. 445(S54)—which came into operation on 1st April 1975. This order designated Prestwick Airport for the purposes of the Policing of Airports Act 1974 which makes provision to enable the policing of any airport to be undertaken by the police force in the area in which it is situated. That is the Ayrshire Constabulary in the case of Prestwick.
This Act became law in July 1974. Since 28th January 1975 I have been in contact with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing)—on the effect of designation on the employment of my constituents who worked for the British Airports Authority Constabulary. At that date there had been no negotiations between my constituents and Ayrshire Constabulary and the British Airports Authority, even though the designation day was near.
During this exchange of letters the Minister gave me the following assurance, on 26th March:
I can confirm that no employee of the BAA can be transferred without his or her consent. It is the wish of the Government the BAA and the police that designation should proceed with the utmost consideration towards individuals affected, and I hope that the current negotiations between the British Airports Authority and Ayrshire will lead to the same fair conclusions as were reached at Heathrow.
On 28th February my constituents received two letters. The first contained the offer of a job from the Ayrshire Joint Police Committee at a salary of £20 a week less than they had received from the British Airports Authority. It involved poorer conditions, three-shift working instead of two, and more onerous duties. The second was a letter from Mr. R. J. Bonner, general manager at Prestwick, which stated that the head office of the BAA was discussing compensation, if any, that men would be entitled to if they accepted the offer from Ayrshire Constabulary.
On 5th February, at a further meeting with the Minister, I asked for more information. I received a reply on 7th March in which the Minister emphasised that the transfer should be carried through with humanity and with complete fairness to those affected. He also stated that the men should look at the package deal as a whole. At the conclusion of the letter he said:
Since our meeting I have learned that the police are not now able to offer a mark time salary to any transferring civilian staff, which will markedly increase the loss of earnings on transfer I think it clearly right that under these circumstances there should be compensation under the Act for transferring; this would be calculated in accordance with the principles of the Local Government Compensation Regulations (Scotland)… I also think it right that if civilians do not transfer, any redundancies should qualify for compensation under the Act, which would also be calculated under the above Regulations".
The Minister added:
I have asked for the necessary calculations to be made and I shall write to you again when detailed figures are available".
My constituents and I are still waiting for those calculations.
On 27th March the Minister saw a further deputation, consisting of myself, Sergeant Hunter, chairman of the BAAC Federation and employed at Prestwick, and Constables Murphy and Lewis, representing the Police Federation, to discuss questions of consultation and terms of compensation. Before this meeting I was informed by telephone that the four civilians had been called to the manager's office at Prestwick and offered alternative jobs with the BAA there. Three vacancies had suddenly appeared. The normal procedure of the BAA for notifying vacancies had been broken, and no mention was made of compensation for financial losses involved in the transfer.
Prior to this, Mr. N. G. Foulkes, Chairman of the BAA, had informed me that the management at Prestwick would have great difficulty in absorbing any more people. Also, in January 1975 the BAA announced its corporate plan for Prestwick Airport, which stated that a review of manpower requirements in all sections would be carried out, achieving an overall manpower saving of 10 per cent. over the next two years—a loss of 36 jobs. Secondly, the corporate plan stated that the majority of the necessary reductions in


manpower would be achieved by not filling posts as staff reached normal retirement age or left Prestwick as a result of postings within the BAA, sickness, or to move to other work outside the BAA, and so on. Yet the four civilians were now being offered jobs.
Following the deputation, I received a further letter from the Under-Secretary about the terms of transfer of one of my constituents to Ayrshire Constabulary. This sergeant was guaranteed employment by the BAAC at Prestwick Airport until the age of 60. By going over to the Ayrshire Constabulary on 1st April 1975 he will come within the scope of the Police (Scotland) Regulations, under which constables and sergeants have a maximum age limit of 55 years or 30 years' service. This constituent will reach 30 years' service at the age of 52, and he will be retired by Strathclyde Police, because under local government reorganisation in Scotland, Ayrshire Constabulary merges with the Strathclyde Police on 16th May of this year.
The Under-Secretary stated in his letter:
The Chief Constables"—
that is, I assume, of Ayrshire and Strathclyde—
have promised to give most sympathetic consideration to retaining former BAAC officers until age 60. There is therefore a high probability of Mr. Clerk"—
my constituent—
being able to serve until 60, in which case the question of compensation will not arise.
On 15th April I sent a copy of the Minister's letter to Mr. David McNee, the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, for his comments. Today I received his reply. After saying that the negotiations for the intake of BAAC officers at Prestwick Airport were the responsibility of the Chief Constable of Ayrshire, he ended his letter thus:
For my own part I am not prepared to give any categorical assurance either in the case of Mr. Clark, in respect of whom a decision is not required for a further three years, or on a ' blanket' basis in relation to other former BAAC personnel. I reserve the right to decide … and not to be tied by assurances given several years earlier".
He also declared that he was not consulted at any time during these negotiations.

I was contacted also by the solicitor who had been instructed to act for the British Airports Authority Police Federation. He had put forward claims for redundancy payments and compensation in respect of four airports, Stansted being one of them.
I asked the Minister, in a Written Question on Thursday 17th April,
What compensation will be paid to those persons who lose office or emoluments attributable to Stansted becomming a designated airport; and if the terms and conditions of this compensation have yet been determined and agreed.
The Minister replied:
On the designation of Stansted Airport under the Policing of Airports Act 1974 all members of the British Airports Authority Constabulary at Stansted were offered and accepted transfer to the Essex Police with no loss of emoluments. Compensation under the Act does not, therefore, arise."—[Official Report, 17th April 1975; Vol. 890, c. 167.]
There is no difficulty about redundancy payments because the machinery already exists to deal with these claims, but unfortunately no regulations appear to have been drawn up to deal with claims under the Policing of Airports Act. In one case in England the BAA has assessed compensation in accordance with the existing regulations, the Police (Compensation) Regulations 1974, which were drawn up to deal only with chief constables. The whole matter is completely and utterly absurd and is grossly unfair to all those people who have been affected by the transfer.
In Scotland the Minister intends to apply the Local Government Compensation (Scotland) Regulations. It has always been the practice of the Government to make proper provision for the payment of compensation to any employee whose employment is adversely affected by parliamentary decree interfering with the conduct of the business within which he is employed. It has always decreed that compensation will be paid to those individuals whose conditions of service or whose pay are adversely affected by the change.
In the various Acts there are sections which make provision for the introduction of regulations setting out the terms and conditions upon which compensation can be paid and the amount. An individual can then easily determine, first, whether he is entitled to compensation and, secondly, the amount to which he is


entitled. In Section 6 of the Policing of Airports Act the Minister is authorised to direct the airports authority to pay compensation to persons who, first, suffer any loss of office; secondly, suffer any loss of employment; thirdly, suffer any loss of emoluments; or, fourthly, suffer any diminution of emoluments.
Designation orders have been made concerning a number of airports, including Prestwick and Stansted, and in each order there is contained a requirement that the airports authority shall make a payment of compensation under the above four headings. Whether or not the person concerned has suffered a loss or diminution of emoluments depends entirely upon the meaning to be given to the word "emoluments". The Minister, in his reply to my Written Question, clearly dodged the fundamental issue, because he said that there was no loss of emoluments, without defining what "emoluments" meant. Also, he did not deal with the question of payment for loss of office or loss of employment.
This whole case clearly indicates the exercise by the airports authority of an absolute right to decide, on no known principles, whether there has been a loss of office, employment, or emoluments, and the exercise of such a right is clearly a flagrant denial of the right of the people involved to be given reasons for an adverse decision. It is only common justice for a person to be told why his claim has been turned down, or, alternatively, to know the principles upon which his claim will be upheld, and for the Minister to fail to state publicly the principles upon which the initial decision will be based is an example of bureaucracy at its worst.
This is a clear case of collusion between a Minister, the Department of Trade and the BAA to defraud these people of their rights. I demand that my constituents and all the former members of the BAAC involved in the transfer, and not just the BAA, get a fair deal.

1.55 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The strictures which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) has thought appropriate to hurl at me, at my Department's officials and at the British Airports Authority are wide of the mark, as I

hope to establish. It is unfortunate that he should seek to exaggerate by making grave allegations of this sort—allegations which, in my submission, are unfounded and exaggerate a case which clearly has given rise to some misunderstandings, which, I submit, are very largely on the part of my hon. Friend and those whom he represents rather than on the part of my Department. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the opportunity to try to clear up some of those misunderstandings which have arisen from the designation of Prestwick Airport under the Policing of Airports Act.
The effect of designation is that all policing responsibilities are transferred to the regular police and that airport constabularies, such as the British Airports Authority Constabulary, the BAAC, cease to exist. The prime motivation for the Policing of Airports Act, passed in July 1974, arose from a situation at Heathrow on which I need not elaborate now. Before designation there were prolonged negotiations with the BAAC Federation. These were conducted by national officials of the federation and Heathrow officials, but full reports were given by the BAA to the full federation committee, including a Prestwick representative.
The BAA made it absolutely clear that it would ask the Government to designate other airports and that the terms being negotiated for Heathrow would form natural guidelines for the others. The basic terms which would govern a designation of Prestwick were therefore clear as long ago as last November.
The terms secured for the BAAC at Heathrow included offers of transfer for virtually all the force in their existing ranks, basically with their existing pay and allowances but with some improvements. Previous service counted in full for pension purposes, and this required a financial contribution from my Department for those transferring to the larger force. There was security of tenure at the airport and the option of broader promotion opportunities.
In effect, those in the BAAC were offered a continuation of their present employment under the same conditions as, and in some respects better conditions than, they had previously enjoyed. There can be no doubt, therefore, that


this represents an extremely fair solution to what might have been a very difficult problem.
Following the Government's decision in December 1974 to designate other BAA airports, including Prestwick, the BAA opened discussions with chief constables. At Prestwick, as elsewhere, the BAAC was offered the Heathrow terms. There were discussions with the Prestwick officers, following which on 8th February the then Chairman of the BAAC Federation, a Prestwick sergeant, wrote to the Chief Constable of Ayrshire saying:
We wish to thank you for the conditions offered which are acceptable to our members and there do not appear to be any further points contained in these conditions that we wish to raise".
That was the position. It was not something that my hon. Friend sought to mention. Instead, he preferred to castigate and chastise those who had received that letter. It is an extraordinary proposition from my hon. Friend.
At that time the timetable for designation on 1st April allowed four weeks for further negotiations. I therefore can see no case at all for arguing a lack of consultation at Prestwick. The letter was clear. No trouble was anticipated or envisaged.
I turn now to the question of compensation. Under Section 6(2)(e) of the Policing of Airports Act, compensation may be ordered for loss of office or employment or loss or diminution of emoluments attributable to designation, and provision has been made for this in designation orders. No specific regulations have been laid down for compensation under the Policing of Airports Act, since, even within the small numbers eligible, there are widely differing circumstances. I shall consider claims sympathetically, but I must be guided by principles laid down in other cases where there has been a statutory reorganisation.
In the case of Prestwick the guidelines to be followed where compensation was appropriate are those of the Local Government Compensation Regulations (Scotland). Compensation is in the first instance claimable from the airport authorities, but ultimately my Department reimburses those authorities. If a claimant is dissatisfied I expect representations to

be made to me, as my hon. Friend has done.
My hon. Friend has criticised the lack of information on conditions of compensation. Following the Heathrow precedents, the position about eligibility should, I would have thought, have been clear to the BAAC at Prestwick. Where compensation is appropriate I would have preferred details to be available before now, but in a situation without any exact parallel it has been necessary to take care to arrive at the best solution possible. As I explained in a letter to my hon. Friend, a change in the expressed wishes of the civilian support staff at Prestwick led to some difficulty and delay.
My hon. Friend made a number of other points. He complained that the BAA had adjusted the situation despite the fact that it was talking in terms of a run-down of staff. Let me make it clear that the reabsorption of civilians at Prestwick became possible because Prestwick clerical staff applied for jobs at Glasgow which were vacant and which the BAA had just taken over. There was nothing sinister about that. My hon. Friend suggested that compensation is applicable for members of the BAAC who had not transferred to the regular police. If they are under 60 and did not receive offers of transfer, as was the case with one constable at Prestwick nearing retirement, I agree. But officers who decline offers of transfer under what I have described as eminently fair conditions have effectively declined the opportunity to continue their present job. Their loss is their own choice, therefore, and in those circumstances I do not consider that compensation is justified.
My hon. Friend alluded to the question of compensation for loss of police service between 55 and 60. It has been pointed out that the police retirement age is 55, with optional extension to 60, and many, although not all, members of BAAC would have been entitled to serve until 60. The conditions of transfer guarantee service until 55, or 30 years' reckonable service, whichever is the later, and sympathetic consideration for service to 60.
If in due course a former BAAC officer wants to serve until 60 and is unable to do so, and might reasonably have


expected to do so in the BAAC, I make it clear to my hon. Friend that I consider that to be a suitable case for compensation.
My hon. Friend made some rather strong remarks about the BAA. The authority has made strenuous efforts to protect the interests of its staff. I understand its reluctance to agree to designation until a fair solution is reached. That has been made absolutely plain as far as I am concerned. I reject in its entirety the unfair attack that my hon. Friend has sought to make against the BAA. If unjustified expectations were raised at Prestwick on the staff side I do not believe that that is the fault of the BAA—

Mr. Lambie: All we want are answers.

Mr. Davis: I am trying to give the answers. I have spent a good deal of time—I do not object to that—with my hon. Friend. The fact that we have not seen eye to eye about this matter is unfortunate. He has rightly raised the matter tonight. I am equally entitled to

defend my actions and those of my Department and the BAA. I utterly reject the allegation that there has been some fraudulent collusion to defeat or prejudice the interests of people who have been employed by the BAA. That is a totally unwarranted attack.
I am sorry that I have so little time left. I should have liked to go into greater detail about the steps taken by the Government, the BAA and the police to bring the designation of BAA airports to a satisfactory conclusion. I do not pretend that designations are possible without some disruption and inconvenience, but I hope I have taken some steps—perhaps a little angrily, because my hon. Friend invited that, and he, too, was a little angry—to satisfy my hon. Friend that all reasonable measures have been taken and are being taken to secure the best outcome possible for all concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Two o'clock.